THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDMay 31, 1976 An Official Publication Volume X, Number 3CONTENTS47 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFEIN REGENSTEIN60 TENSION AND GROWTH: ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STUDENTMENTAL HEALTH CLINIC, 1974-7567 OBLIGATIONS TO FUTURE GENERATIONS69 SUMMARY OF THE 358TH CONVOCATION70 REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 197672 ADDENDUM TO THE OMBUDSMAN'S REPORT: A REVIEW OFCOLLEGE FINANCIAL AID AWARD DETERMINATION78 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1973-74 DOCTORATES86 A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF 1974-75 DOCTORATES95 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: GLEN A. LLOYD, 1895-197596 MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: NAPIER WILT, 1896-197599 DISTINGUISHED SERVICE, NAMED, AND UNIVERSITYPROFESSORSTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER©Copyright 1976 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDREPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE QUALITYOF LIFE IN REGENSTEINTo: President John T. WilsonApril 6, 1976Your decision to extend the Committee on theQuality of Life in Regenstein beyond the springquarter of 1975 into the current academic yearindicated a sense that some following up of theCommittee's thinking as contained in its Reportof last June 18th, and of conditions in Regensteinitself, would be a useful service. The Committeehas been reviewing and reconsidering both itsown thinking and the overall situation respectingthe University libraries for the past two quarters.The present Report is in part an updating, in parta recasting of the concerns and conclusions of lastJune's Report. By the end of spring quarter 1976,we hope to submit an additional and probably finalReport, which will deal with Library matters of amore conventional kind. These, we have come tofeel, could benefit from a considered expressionof opinion on the part of this Committee, representing the viewpoint of faculty and student usersof the University libraries.1. Introduction: Committee Concerns, A RetrospectiveOur Committee Report of last June 18th offered acommentary on the circumstances then existing inRegenstein (and Harper); it also identified factorswhich, in our estimation, had a material bearingon those circumstances. The June 18th Report wasorganized under four headings which indicatedour major topics of concern: (1) the multiple functions of Regenstein combined with its high levelsof use, and the toll being taken of the furnishingsand resources of the building by the amount andtype of use (and abuse) to which it was being subjected; (2) the underutilization of Harper Library;(3) the unsatisfactory state of custodial and physi cal upkeep in Regenstein; and (4) problems withRegenstein policies and staff. Also appended tothe June 18th Committee Report was achairman's addendum, by Wayne C. Booth,which proposed that the transfer of RegensteinReserve services to Harper be given serious consideration.The present Committee on the Quality of Lifein Regenstein exhibits a mix of continuing andnew members in its composition; moreover, it hasbeen deliberating on matters changed by the passage of time, by the additional information it hascollected and received,1 and by administrativedevelopments in Regenstein. Accordingly, it isnot surprising that our thinking has changed onsome points and our topics of concern shifted.This section will deal with two such shifts. Tobegin with, we wish to withdraw the proposalmade in last June's addendum and to explain ourreasons for doing so. Next we will indicate whythe "problems with Regenstein policies andstaff," as discussed in section (4) of the previousCommittee Report, are no longer a major topic ofconcern. In the following sections of this Report,1. Our principal sources of new information include: the Reserve users' questionnaire (circulated December 4, 1975); theproceedings at our open Committee hearings (February 6 and13, 1975); users' letters to the Committee (August1975-February 1976); data on Reserve, canteen, and buildinguse made available through the assistance of Stanley McEl-derry, Director, and Howard Dillon, Associate Director, University Library, either directly or through the Library staffsPublic Service Committee; information on use of Harper Library furnished by its Librarian, Jean A. McClelland; the costfigures and evaluations presented in the Joseph Regenstein Library Plan for Maintenance and Architectural Modifications,1975-1985 (Fall 1975) prepared by Ralph Youngren of MetzTrain Olson & Youngren, Inc.; and cost estimates furnished byCalvert Audrain, Director, Physical Planning and Construction,upon our request to D. Gale Johnson, Provost. Kenneth Prew-itt, Director, National Opinion Research Center, advised us onthe format of our questionnaire. We are grateful to everyoneinvolved in the cooperation represented by the above-citedsources.47we will expand upon our continuing concerns andthe changes in our thinking about them.Last June's addendum proposing the removalof Regenstein Reserve to Harper did not takeadequate account of the volume or the unusualfeatures of this intensively used service of theUniversity Library. The Committee collectednew information through the kind cooperation ofMs. Betty Cole, Head of Regenstein Reserve;this information included the answers provided ona questionnaire by the further kind cooperation of510 patrons of Regenstein Reserve during a high-use day in finals week of autumn quarter. Thefacts about Reserve which seemed salient to ourpresent Committee are given immediately below.In 1974-75 the total number of discrete chargesof circulating materials from Regenstein was361,539; the figure rises well over 500,000 if renewals are added in. In the same year the totalnumber of discrete charges of Regenstein Reservematerials was 145,433. That is to say, roughly 40percent of Regenstein circulation is accounted forcurrently by Reserve. Only a small amount of Reserve circulation — about 30,000 charges out of thetotal of over 145,000 — is two-hour use. Our questionnaire reflected in part on this pattern; 133 outof 510 responses collected in the course of oneday indicated that the respondents would not beusing, and would not need to use, their Reserveitem in the Reserve Reading Room. There is seating space for 200 persons in the Reserve ReadingRoom at present. Perhaps one might concludethat the present capacity of the Reserve ReadingRoom could be reduced. However, relocatingReserve from Regenstein to Harper is an entirelyseparate question.Further relevant figures are that an average of12,000 items are put on reserve each quarter, autumn through spring, and an average of 6,000 inthe summer. Only about 2,000 items, on the average, are retained on reserve from one quarter tothe next. This means that the total being movedfrom stacks to Reserve and back again is between9,000 and 10,000 most quarters. As a yearly function, then, Regenstein Reserve processes a totalstore of about 42,000 items, 35,000 of which remain on reserve for one quarter at most, andhardly any of which attain a de facto "permanentreserve" status. Moreover, of this yearly total of42,000 Reserve items, 94 percent are from Regenstein (including the Y-collection) and a mere 6percent from other locations. Our Committeeconcluded that, from the point of view of Libraryservices and costs alone, Reserve should not bemoved out of Regenstein. Considerations emerging from the point of viewof Library users likewise support this conclusion.The purpose of a reserve system is to ensureequitable circulation of scarce materials, thus affording maximal accessibility without the greatincrease in expenditure that duplicate copieswould entail. The average number of uniquecopies on reserve each quarter in Regenstein varies between one-third and one-half of the total, anexceptionally high proportion in comparison withthat of many other university libraries. The consequence is that, at Chicago, Reserve users include not only students enrolled in courses forwhich items have been put on reserve, but alsoany other students, and any faculty, who needaccess to those unique copies of items which constitute a major part of Regenstein Reserve inevery quarter. Another indication that the question of accessibility is important in consideringalternative locations for Reserve is the extensiveuse of it by schools and departments which havemany students and faculty; the five principal Reserve listings, by course headings, are Education,Economics, Business, History, and English. OurCommittee therefore concluded that, for reasonsinvolving the needs of Reserve users in(specifically) large degree programs for(specifically) unique copies of items, no less thanfor reasons of administrative efficiency andeconomy,2 Reserve should remain in Regenstein.We continue, now, with the changes which ourCommittee has registered with regard to thefourth heading of last June's Report and the substance of the discussion contained there. It is obvious to us, from hindsight and from new perceptions, that there was a crucial factor which theCommittee did not take into consideration lastspring and perhaps could not have taken into consideration, given its lack of a basis of comparisonwithin the short span of its existence. This factorwas the extent to which last spring was a crisisperiod — and to that extent untypical of "life inRegenstein." Certainly the operation of anunidentified arsonist in Regenstein between theend of winter quarter and the beginning of springquarter 1975 and the intricate check-in andcheck-out procedures in force through much ofthe spring quarter, in combination with all of thefrustration and anxiety aroused in the Universitycommunity during this period, resulted in an abnormally negative psychological climate in the2. The figures in the three preceding paragraphs and the description of Regenstein Reserve were provided by Betty Cole,Head, in a memo (November 18, 1975) and in personal communication with the Committee chairman.48Library. Some of the Committee's commentaryon "abuse" of Regenstein and "problems ofpolicies and staff" in last spring's Report mayhave reflected too much of temporary developments as opposed to an underlying set of conditions, without sufficiently distinguishing the onefrom the other. However, the most importantpoint to be made is that there have been substantial improvements in Regenstein' s dealings withits users since the issuance of last spring's Committee Report.Of the four topics of concern to our Committeewhich were represented by the four divisions ofthat Report, only the fourth has so far met withany constructive action from any relevant quarterof the University. This has been action by theLibrary administration and staff. Mr. Stanley E.McElderry, Director, University Library, has instituted a series of changes which have made vitaldifferences in the impact and impression createdby the staff in Regenstein. In our estimation, thechief of these have been the appointment of Mr.Howard W. Dillon to the new position of Associate Director for Public Services, the reorganization of personnel administration under Ms.Patricia Wilcoxen, and the formation of an activeand responsible staff Public Service Committee,chaired by Ms. Patricia Clatanoff. Regensteinusers in general will have noted the improvedcivility of the staff working at the first-floor Circulation desk. The tone of Library postal notices haslikewise improved. A significant demonstration ofthe responsiveness and initiative of the Librarystaff appeared in the prompt resolution of amonopolizing threat posed by the misbehavior ofa group of users in the A-level carrel area this pastfall quarter. Firmness by the staff in enforcingpolicy outlined in a well-worded notice anddistributed in the carrels on every floor broughtthe constructive results.3Our Committee in particular has benefited thisyear from the help and cooperation of the Director and Associate Director, the Public ServiceCommittee, and the Regenstein staff. We have sofar met jointly with the Public Service Committeeon four occasions to discuss shared concerns andsteps toward ameliorating the major interlockingproblems of user behavior and maintenance standards. On the practical front, the SPQR (Societyfor the Preservation of Quiet in Regenstein) campaign, launched when noise levels, especially inthe evening, became a problem in the latter half of3. For particulars, see JCL notice 726-75 and Letters to theEditor, Maroon, October 24 and 31, 1975. this past fall quarter, was a mutual undertaking ofour Committee and the Public Service Committee. In fact, the sustaining effort came from Ms.Wilcoxen, who oversaw the lapel button table andorganized the temporary monitoring system thataccompanied the SPQR campaign.4Perhaps most indicative of all is the fact thatonly one new minor complaint regarding treatment by Library staff this year has been receivedby the University Ombudsman's office. OurCommittee has received no complaints at all thisyear regarding treatment by Library staff or regarding those Library regulations that are inforce. The only qualification we have to make incommending the staff and services of Regensteincurrently is that, in our judgment, there are notenough of either. The existing situation seems tous to constitute an irreducible minimum — and, insome areas, a gross inadequacy — in planned-forand budgeted Library functions and services.Likewise, we find that the current situation inRegenstein is too permissive and unregulated withrespect both to smoking, food, and beverages, onthe one hand, and to access and circulation ofLibrary materials, on the other. We are deferringconsiderations of the latter kind until our nextreport. The remainder of this Report will be devoted to second and, we believe, better thoughtson the three topics of concern which are still verymuch with this Committee and the Universitycommunity as we reflect on the "quality of life,"actual and potential, in Regenstein.2. Reflections on the Complexities of Function andUse of RegensteinThe fact most evident about Regenstein Library isthat it has emerged as the center of visibleacademic activity on The University of Chicagocampus. Although the current Campaign forChicago promotional materials seek to make exultant capital of Regenstein as "the most active social center of learning among libraries in the United States,"5 other recorded reactions to the rolesthat Regenstein has come to play on this campushave been noticeably less enthusiastic. We wishto reflect on the history of the building and ofreactions to it as a way of clarifying how the perceptions and ideas of our Committee have beendeveloping since last June's Report.No one foresaw, when Regenstein opened its4. Details of publicity and response appeared in the Maroon,November 25 and December 2, 1975.5. The Campaign for Chicago, To Create an InheritanceForever, text by D. J. R. Bruckner (December 1974), p. 35.49doors to its public over five years ago, that thebuilding would attain such extensive and intensiveuse as a centralized Library facility replacingmost of the network of departmental libraries ineffect earlier at Chicago. The Harper Librarycomplex, which extended from Business Eastthrough the Social Sciences and Wieboldt Reading Rooms into the Classics Reading Room andwas the closest approximation to a central facilityunder the earlier system, averaged 800-1,100users daily in 1969-70; Regenstein at present has 7between 2,000 and 3,000 users daily. (The corresponding size of the University in 1969-70 was1,071 faculty and 8,163 students; in 1975-76, 1,062faculty and 7,773 students.) If, however, it can nolonger be a surprise that Regenstein on the edge ofthe Quadrangles has come into its own as amagnetic and vital hub, the operating and maintaining of the building and its services nevertheless pose a sobering and continuing challenge tothe Library and University administration.Most simply put, Regenstein upsets or exceedsall usual expectations as to what a library — even auniversity library — should be because it is functioning as a good deal more than just a library.Last June's Committee Report identified its threemajor roles. Beyond being a circulating, reference, and research library, Regenstein serves,conspicuously but not only in its long eveninghours, as a study hall and as a center for socialcontact and interchange. The absence of a studentunion on this campus continues to exacerbate thedemands placed on Regenstein to play all three ofits roles to the hilt. Last June's Report by thisCommittee dwelt exclusively on the problematicrelation of these roles to each other. The tendencyin our thinking then was to try to simplify thematter by recommending steps that would split upand separate out some of Regenstein' s functionsand uses — reducing its use as a study hall bypromoting the use of Harper, reducing its use as asocial center by removing the canteen facility andencouraging greater use of the "C" Shop andHutchinson Commons. There is still much to besaid for this line of thinking. (See the dissentingopinion of Committee member William A. Ring-ler, Jr., included as Appendix 1 to this Report.)To a considerable extent, the different uses andfunctions of Regenstein can be treated as separable: daytime use by students tends to be for shorter periods than does evening use, while eveninguse is characterized by more overt socializing andless direct reliance on Library materials. (A survey made of student users in the evening, by astudent committee in 1973-74, showed that 70 percent brought in their materials for study anddid not avail themselves of the Library resourcesat all.) Above all, it is true that the roles of Regenstein are in a very problematic relation to eachother at present, and some means of dealing withthe problems are urgently needed. One way ofdealing with the problems might be to force a reduction in the roles which Regenstein plays.Whether this course of action is adopted alone, oras part of a larger campus plan, this Committee believes that Regenstein should not function, andshould not be expected to function, as a social center. The need for a student-union type of facility toaccommodate casual getting together, relaxation,and some recreation remains an urgent one in theeyes of anyone concerned, as this Committee is,with aspects of the "quality of life" on this campus.The material evidence of the challenge whichRegenstein constitutes in its present complexityof uses is extremely clear from the debilitationand lack of upkeep that the building has alreadysustained in its short history. Wool carpeting thatwas expected to last ten years did not even lastfive in heavy-traffic areas. But, far more seriously, smoking and consumption of food and beverages throughout the building have caused substantial damage to finishes and furnishings. Worstof all, the condition of combined fire hazards anduncleanliness that exists at present in the buildingis beyond all effective and affordable control. The$184,557 spent in 1973-74 for custodial services inRegenstein still resulted in an unacceptably lowlevel of maintenance and included no provisionwhatever for such badly needed services as wallwashing, repainting, or repair of furnishings.6 At aprojected 12 percent yearly rate of cost increasefor custodial services, it is equally imperative forthe users of Regenstein and for the University andLibrary administrations that containment of food,beverages, and smoking be achieved as promptlyas possible to ensure the future of this invaluablefacility. The question is not only one of financesand physical upkeep, important as these thingsare.7 There is an even more significant psychological investment that the faculty and students whouse Regenstein so extensively, in such numbers,6. Youngren Plan, Appendix, items 2 and 3: Memo (April 17,1975) by E. L. Miller and comments (May 16, 1975) by P. S.Schnoor.7. Unfortunately, we have no estimates as to the cost in dollars of the damage that has been done to Library materials bybeverages, food, and cigarettes. Signs of abuse are not difficultto come by, however. One Library staff member recently saw adrawer of the card catalogue being used as an ashtray while thesmoker in question went carefully through a run of cards in anadjacent drawer.50have made. They demonstrate the value of Regenstein to them, quite directly, by choosing tocome there and be there rather than elsewhere.This central value of Regenstein to our communalacademic life must be safeguarded by safeguarding Regenstein as a place where faculty and students want to be.This present Committee has come to believethat an exclusive focus on the undeniable problems and negative implications of the presentcomplex functions of Regenstein, such as thatpresented in our own Report of last June, gives anincomplete and unbalanced view of the "qualityof life" there. Such a view could lead to changesthat might very well eliminate difficulties — alongwith good things, that went unrecognized, into thebargain. To put the matter another way, thenumber of users and the amount of usage thatRegenstein attracts are, in one very real sense, agrave problem for the building; but in anothersense, just as real, they are a tribute to it and tothe vitality and multiplicity of human endeavorthat goes on inside.Testimony received in our Committee's openhearings and in letters sent to the Chairman bystudents and faculty has added to our continuingreflections so as to balance our mainly negativeearlier line of thinking with the weight of the morerecent positive findings we have made. We think itis important to realize that Regenstein is sogreatly used because faculty and students find thatit answers to the needs and habits of thisUniversity's way of life and rhythms of work. Anillustration can be given in what our Committeelearned about why Regenstein is so much used forextended periods in the evening, and why severalstudents have repeatedly urged that the buildingshould be open until 1 a.m. all week long. Tobegin with, Regenstein offers a spaciousnessthroughout that student housing, University ornon-University, has never been distinguished for.However, the main appeal of Regenstein appearsto be the quiet it offers. We have come to believethat the noisiness of most living quarters — the in-escapability of loud music and quality stereoequipment, in particular — is an increasingly severe impediment to doing one's academic work inone's dormitory or apartment. The atmosphere ofspaciousness and quiet afforded by Regensteincan be had only there by many of its users. Inaddition, the open floor plan and comfortable furnishings for armchair reading as well as desk workconduce to personal well-being and to group coexistence, even over extended stretches of time.While sustaining serious study, the prevailing to nality of Regenstein is informal and relaxed, making possible natural transitions from solitary concentration to equally involved discussions to taking a break with friends. As such, the Library isan easily recognizable extension or correlate ofone's classroom or seminar experience at theUniversity. Many users of Regenstein are consciously appreciative of the versatility of thebuilding, of the ways in which it accommodatesand fosters their academic efforts, not least bymaking it possible to take a short respite for talk,coffee, a cigarette, without imposing discontinuityor inconvenience. Compared with libraries thatare more restrictive toward their users becausethey are more restricted in their uses, Regensteinoffers such superior benefits and amenities that ithas no obvious equal. The character of the facilitydid not come about by accident, but was carefullyplanned and generously brought into being. TheUniversity community at Chicago is not insensitive to what Regenstein offers; on this point, theusers, in the amount of use they give the building,speak for themselves.However, if the positive side of life in Regenstein is the naturalness with which the buildinglends itself to work and relaxation, privacy andsociability, the positive qualities are at riskagainst the negative side of that life at present.This Committee is concerned to represent asclearly as possible what it perceives as the complexities of Regenstein. In the first place, as lastJune's Report indicated, the building, its furnishings, and the resources of the Library are deteriorating under the prevailing behavior patternsof its users. Independent support for this conclusion is provided in the Plan for Maintenance andArchitectural Modifications, 1975-1985 (Fall1975), which the University administration commissioned for Regenstein from the architecturalfirm of Metz Train Olson & Youngren, Inc.8 Butthis is not the whole of the negative side in ourCommittee's eyes. We find Regenstein to beoperating under two additional liabilities, both ofthem consequences of conceiving of the facility asa conventional library rather than as the complexfocus of academic activity which it has provenitself to be. One of these liabilities is the need tobring the uses and functions of Regenstein intorelation with each other as a set of priorities, ahierarchy of values. Another is the need for morethan a narrowly drawn-up "Library-only" budgetfor Regenstein, once the priorities and values aredefined.8. Youngren Plan, pp. 1, 5-10.51Budgetary planning is beyond the competenceand the purview of this Committee. However, articulation of values and priorities is not. We areundertaking to speak out for preserving the valuesof the users of Regenstein and of Regenstein itself. We see as the undoubted first priority themaintenance of Regenstein as the University Library, in its research, reference, circulation, andreading-room facilities. It is painfully evident atthe present time that coffee, cigarettes, snacks,and active socializing — whatever priority these intermittently assume for users — interfere with theLibrary functions and uses of Regenstein whenthey are mixed with them. However, we do notthink that barring these things from Regenstein isa workable or a humanly justified course of action, for various reasons. First, it sets an isolatedpremium on maintaining the physical buildingwithout taking into account the most conspicuousfact about "life in Regenstein" — the intensivework habits and often extensive stays of users inthe building. It is simply not realistic to provideonly for library work in Regenstein. Aspects ofneeded realism include considerations of Chicagoweather and of hazards to personal safety in walking city streets, especially at night. The desire ofusers to be able to stay in Regenstein over astretch of several hours is not an unreasonableone. Secondly, realism requires that the past history of Regenstein' s use be taken into account intrying to formulate policy for the future. We havebeen in — indeed, still are in — the throes of laxityand misuse. The existence of such conditionsdoes not merely degrade the building; even moreimportantly, the psychology of those who work inand use the building is adversely affected. Lack ofrestraint in behavior undermines cooperativeness,considerateness, all the thresholds of awarenessof one's own responsibility and direct participation in matters of preservation and upkeep. Whatis desperately needed for Regenstein is not anideally simple approach to the problems causedby present behavior patterns in the building, but afair and reasonable set of regulations and procedures that can and will meet compliance.Our Committee has concluded that thereshould be a centralized facility in Regenstein toaccommodate the lesser human priorities connected with the legitimate need to "take a break"from one's academic work, and that coffee,snacking, and smoking be localized there and onlythere. In other words, we propose an absolutedivision, in terms of location and physical space,between the Library and non-Library activities ofRegenstein' s users. Only by means of such a divi sion, we feel, can the complexities ofRegenstein' s functions be balanced with thesafeguarding of its true values and priorities. Weview our proposal as being in the best mutual interests of the users, the staff, the building, and theLibrary as a whole. However, the need for a social center/student union on The University ofChicago campus remains as great as ever in theface of our proposal, which is carefully defined tomaintain the "quality of life in Regenstein"viewed, first and foremost, as the University Library.In recognition of the impossibility of conditionscontinuing as they are in the building, it is ourCommittee's belief that a showing of good faith onthe part of the users of Regenstein can and shouldbe asked for immediately. Accordingly, we urgethat the University and Library administration implement Howard Dillon's ideas for containing foodand beverages in the users' and staff canteenareas and for restricting smoking to designatedareas as an interim plan beginning this springquarter, as affirmatively voted on by our Committee and the Public Service Committee of the Library.9 If compliance with these containment measures proves unobtainable or impossibly difficult,we would conclude that this University communitycannot sustain a Regenstein in which the currentrange of vital human functions is kept and yetcombined with a long-term human investment ofgood sense and good will. The same reservationholds for the future and for the proposals in thisReport, if they are implemented and a containment policy nevertheless proves unworkable. Inthat eventuality, a review of the problem and possible solutions would have to be undertaken froma different perspective than the present oneadopted by this Committee.3. Proposals Regarding the Physical Facilities andUpkeep of RegensteinThe essence of our Committee's proposals is thatthere be provided a centralized facility, withinRegenstein, where users could obtain refreshmentand a brief respite from their Library work. To besatisfactory and workable, this centralized facilityin our opinion needs to be: (1) an area which, in itslocation, operating policies, and amenities offered, serves to uphold the hierarchy of prioritiesfor Regenstein; (2) an area effectively enclosedand maintained as separate from the book and9. Memo to S. McElderry, Program to Restrict Use of Foodand Beverages to Canteen and Lounge Areas, and to ConfineSmoking to Designated Areas (December 4, 1975).52reading areas of Regenstein, in order to supportuniform, equitable, and enforceable regulationsfor the overall use of the physical facilities of thebuilding; (3) an area spacious enough to containand accommodate smoking and coffee or snackbreaks by Regenstein' s users (insofar as these canreasonably be projected), as well as modest in itsfurnishings and minimal in the interiormodifications required to bring it into being. Wewill proceed to describe as specifically as we canwhat we envisage in such a facility and detail theconstructive consequences which we anticipate inproposing its creation.Regarding the location of a prospective centralized facility, we are opposed to the use of theprime first-floor space of Reserve, and above-ground space generally, for this purpose. In ouropinion, the use of prime Library space wouldundermine the proper priorities for Regenstein bymaking such a facility too much of an attraction inits own right. We believe that a clear conceptionof this facility as a service facility, a users' convenience, should govern the choice of its locationand outfittings. We also believe that the costs ofits operation should be absorbed as much as possible in the prices charged for the items dispensed.It seems to us that the basic idea behind theYoungren Plan proposal — an idea to utilize theA-level space presently designated as All,AHA, A10, and A10A for a self-enclosed centralized facility — is an appropriate and feasibleone. However, our Committee is emphaticallyopposed to the expensive remodeling and newstaircase construction included in the YoungrenPlan proposal. We believe that the present roomdivisions of this A-level space can be retained,perhaps added to with further partitions; but wedo not find large-scale architectural modificationto be necessary or desirable in order to bring anadequate facility into being. Some specifics of ourthinking about how an effective facility might beachieved at minimal cost are given below.10 Wewould welcome suggestions as to a still less expensive and equally adequate alternative locationwithin Regenstein, if one could be found.The furnishings and offerings of this facilityshould be simple, basic, and utilitarian, which10. The respective cost estimates which the Committee has received for implementing the Youngren Plan A-level conversionrange between $122,000 (Physical Planning and Construction)and $200,000 (Director, University Library). We are not in aposition to judge between these estimates. However, in both, an$80,000 allocation for construction of a staircase from the firstfloor lobby to A-level is a major item. We believe that the staircase plan should be eliminated from further consideration.It should be noted, moreover, that the Youngren Plan A-level need not mean repellent. A high premium shouldbe put on durable, easily cleaned, soil- and- wear-resistant materials for walls, floors, andoutfittings. Noise absorption is also an extremelyimportant consideration. We would propose subdividing All in particular so that floor-to-ceilingpartitions could separate smoking from nonsmoking areas. (See Fig. A for a sketch of possible allocation of functions within the A-levelspace mentioned above.) In the canteen areas, weenvisage machine-dispensed coffee, milk, softdrinks, and packaged bakery products (doughnuts, sweet rolls). If possible, we would like tosee more nutritious snack items: fruit juices, freshfruit, yogurt. Prices charged for machine-dispensed items should be adjusted to make thefinancial operation of the facility (including thecosts of adequate cleaning and maintenance) asself-supporting as possible. The canteen areasshould be furnished with small tables and icecream-parlor-type chairs, preferably in a stackingdesign so that extra chairs could be left availablewithout taking up a great deal of room. (There ispartial sentiment in the Committee that anelbow-height, stand-up bar might also be a goodfeature.) Emphatically, there should be indirect,very low lighting in the canteen areas. Such furnishings and lighting would establish the "snackbar" style of operation and prevent use of theseareas for study.It is imperative, above all, to contain noise,smoke, and the food and beverages obtainablefrom the vending machines entirely within thecentralized facility. To effectuate this containment, we recommend the installation of a verysubstantial revolving door or pair of revolvingdoors at the exit-entrance of the facility, and thestationing of a guard just inside it, adjacent to therevolving door(s). A guard will need to be on dutyto enforce policy during all the hours that Regenstein is open. (On this matter, see further, (d)below.)This, in outline, comprises our Committee'sview of what the Regenstein facility should be: aplace to take a break, briefly, from one's librarywork, a place where food or beverages bought onthe premises, but not brought in from elsewhere,can be consumed. Further elaboration of the usesconversion would necessitate relocation of the All conferenceroom, presumably off Special Collections in a section of thepresent reserve Reading Room. Both of the above cost estimates reckon with this relocation, which affects the first floor aswell as A-level. No reduction in book storage space would,however, be involved. In fact, the area taken by the presentusers' canteen would be merged into the stack area surroundingit.53of such a deliberately simple and basic installationwould lead, unacceptably in our view, toward itsbecoming a lunchroom or cafeteria. We reiteratethat space in Regenstein should be controlledstrictly by a coherent overall set of Library-firstpriorities. Actual meal- serving can and should beleft to Reynolds Club and other local eating-places.There are several other requirements which ourCommittee views as inseparable components of aplan for a Regenstein facility . If these are not, orcannot be, implemented, we believe that thereshould be no attempt made to provide for such afacility in Regenstein at all. These requirementsare as follows:(a) Eating, drinking, carrying in of food andbeverages, and smoking should be expressly prohibited in all sections of Regenstein. Food, beverages, and smoking should be permitted only in thecentralized facility (and in the staff facility referred to in [c] below). Graphics and informationsheets to this effect should be prominently displayed to the Library's public.(b) In keeping with such regulations, a checkroom should be reinstituted in the combined areaof rooms 101 and SI 22 adjacent to the main entrance of Regenstein . The checkroom should makeavailable 150-200 coin-operated, parcel- size lockers in which lunches, thermoses, and similar itemsneeding deposit could be left for the duration ofone day.(c) The same regulations that apply toRegenstein' s public should apply to its staff. Inview of the encroachments that arise at presentfrom the contiguous users' canteen and staff canteen, it may very well be that an entirely separateand equally self-contained facility for food, beverages, and smoking should be set up for thework-breaks of the Library staff.11 (Our Committee is divided on this point, but the majority favorproviding the staff with the separate quarters theyappear to desire.) The same guidelines about furnishings and functions should apply to the staffcanteen. It should be simple, basic, and require aslittle modification as possible of the existing building structure. In particular, the staff facility, too,should not be a lunchroom.(d) Effective control — that is, containment offood, beverages, and smoking within the spaceprovided for this purpose and there only — must beinsisted upon and enforced. We believe that the1 1 . It has been suggested to our Committee that a portion of thefirst-floor work area adjacent to Technical Services mightperhaps be suitable for a staff facility, but we have no preciseproposal to make as to its location. means of control and enforcement will have toinclude initially, and for some period of timethereafter, both roving monitors in the stacks andreading-room areas and a guard at the revolvingentrance-exit door(s) of the facility. The job of theroving monitors will, in turn, be eased by effectivemeasures for preventing food and beverages fromentering the building and from leaving the centralized facility. The initial costs of extra monitorand guard personnel should be regarded as one ofthe necessary expenses for maintaining Regenstein as the complexly functioning organism it hasproven to be. However, we would hope that, asbehavior and use patterns are altered, the need forthe roving monitors and a facility guard woulddecrease and ultimately vanish altogether.Nonetheless, one procedure relating to controland enforcement seems to us to be a permanentrequirement. We recommend retention of a system of admittance to Regenstein which would require filing past a checkpoint near the main entrance before proceeding into the Library proper.There would be two steps in this system: presentation of valid University identification, and inspection of bags, purses, briefcases, backpacks,and other such carrying cases being brought intothe building. Persons entering with lunches orthermoses would be referred to the coin-operatedlockers in the foyer checkroom. Persons enteringwith open (or carry-out) food or beverages wouldbe referred outside the building. We do not feelthat the time and effort required for making a cursory inspection of carrying cases, on the onehand, and cooperating with such an inspection, onthe other, will produce any real delay or complication in entering Regenstein. The need, moreover,to draw the line of enforcement of a consistentand complete food, beverage, and smoking policyat the main door of the Library is too obvious toneed elaboration.(e) Beginning with information posted at themain door, an integral part of effective control offood, beverages, and smoking within Regensteinis a clearly spelled-out set of regulations andpenalties for infraction of these regulations. In ouropinion, a first offense should be met with a warning, the taking down of the offender's name andUniversity status from his/her I.D. by the guardor monitor, and immediate cessation of the illegalintroduction or consumption. We believe that anysubsequent offense should be dealt with strictly,by steeply increasing fines or by revoking Libraryprivileges for periods ranging from a minimum ofone quarter to permanently. Again, in this matterof regulations, the complexity of Regenstein' s55functions reappears. Jurisdiction here is not aquestion of "house discipline" as administered bythe academic Deans nor of ordinary Library dealings with overdue and lost books and the like. Notthe least of possible unprecedented developmentshere is that of faculty infractions. But the prospectof losing one's Library privileges is, we feel, a realand universal inducement to all of Regenstein' susers to be cooperative and law-abiding. Wepropose that the drafting of a specific set of regulations and penalties to be entrusted to a specialCommittee composed of members of the Librarystaff, students, faculty, and University administration and that alleged infractions of the regulations be referred for judgment to the UniversityDisciplinary Committee(s).(f ) A further and final aspect of the effectivecontrol of smoking, food, and beverages withinRegenstein is the need for a revised cleaningschedule for the entire building, the Libraryproper as well as the proposed centralized facility,and accompanying supervision to ensure thatstandards of maintenance are being met. Much ofthe insistence on upgraded maintenance of Regenstein which was made by our Committee in lastJune's Report could be repeated verbatim here.Additionally, we have a new proposal which weregard as very important. The cleaning of Regenstein should be adjusted to the use patterns ofthe building so as to ensure, specifically, that thebuilding is clean when it is opened in the morning(including Monday morning). It seems to us thatregular maintenance throughout Regenstein mightbe best provided for by an early-morning shift beginning, say, at four or five o'clock. Cleaning ofthe canteen areas should also be done severaltimes daily, after ascertained periods of heavyuse. Again, the expense of such services shouldbe accepted as the cost of the present complexfunctions of Regenstein. However, it appears entirely likely that the expense of total buildingmaintenance will decrease substantially, and thestandards of maintenance be better met, if a central facility for food, beverages, and smoking isprovided. The Youngren Plan, for example, projects an initial reduced expense differential of$42,107 per year, even with the inclusion of anumber of upkeep and refurbishing services thatare presently not alloted for at all on the maintenance budget for Regenstein.12The questions of location, furnishings, andphysical separateness of a facility for food, bever-12. Youngren Plan, Appendix, item 2, pp. 1-2; and main text,p. 14. ages, and smoking in Regenstein have beentreated with some semblance of assurance in thecourse of the preceding discussion. Some of themost difficult questions our Committee has faced,both with a view to practicality and to our perception of priorities for use of the building, have beenthose of the total size to propose for the facilityand the respective size of its subdivisions. We dopropose that there be a minimum of two subdivisions, into a smoking and a nonsmoking area forthose consuming food and/or beverages, and possibly a modest smokers' sitting-room in addition.We think it would be best to retain flexibility individing up the central facility with floor-to-ceilingpartitions that can be repositioned, in the event ofinadequate calculation or changing use patterns orboth. This still leaves the question of how manypersons should be accommodated at one timewithin the facility. It is a difficult question because it is so largely imponderable, given thepresent diffusion throughout the building of theeating, drinking, and smoking which we insistmust be contained.Thanks to the kindness of the Library Staff 'sPublic Service Committee, we have had thebenefit of the information set out in Tables 1 and 2.Of the three figures given for the specified hoursof each day, the first is the number of persons inthe users' canteen, the second is the number ofpersons in the staff canteen, the third is thenumber of persons in the carpeted A-level entry-way. An x in place of a number indicates that theparticular canteen in question was temporarilyclosed for cleaning.Perhaps the most useful observation we havefound is that volunteered by the Library staffmember who did the canteen use counts for Wednesday, October 8, 1975: "It is taken for grantedthat it is all right to smoke, drink, and eat in theReading Rooms. At 8 o'clock on A-level, for example, there were approximately 100 peopleworking. Eleven of these were smoking, 26 wereeating and/or drinking. This proportion held truealso for the other floors, for which I have comparable statistics. The signs are ignored; I doubtvery much that most people even know they arethere."13On the basis of simple multiplication of theabove figures for six floors of reading areas, andadding the highest evening use counts, oneemerges with a figure of 225 to 250 as an estimateof the maximum number of persons consuming13. Memo to Pat Clatanoff (October 8, 1975), p. 1.56food and beverages at one time under the presentunregulated conditions in the Library. On thesame basis, under the same conditions, one wouldarrive at an estimated 65 persons smoking. Theimponderable factor in attempting to work withthese figures is, precisely, how much they wouldreduce if eating, drinking, or smoking necessitated taking a break from one's library work andgoing to the A-level facility. We admit to guesswork, but we do not think it is unreasonable tosuppose that these numbers would reduce fromthe maxima by at least one-third. (In any case, thefacility would be deliberately geared to shortpauses in a work routine and, consequently, torapid turnover in use.) Accordingly, we suggest atotal canteen capacity of 150, and a total smokers'sitting-room capacity of 30 to 45, as fairly realisticworking figures. As mentioned above, we wouldalso imagine that 150-200 coin-operated storagelockers for one-day use constitute a reasonableprovision in the first-floor checkroom. But ourCommittee is very cognizant of its inexperience, and the incompleteness of its data, in making theabove estimates. We hope that if our proposals inthis Report are adopted, some more authoritativedetermination than ours will be undertaken.4. Reflections and Suggestions Regarding HarperLibraryThe current problems arising from the complexityof Regenstein' s uses and functions are met by anevident obverse in Harper's situation, whereamount and frequency of use has not occurred atthe rate expected. Our Committee has remainedconcerned about Harper Library. Yet we do notbelieve that there are any easy and neat measuresby which Harper can be made to share inRegenstein' s complexities and help to shoulderthe burden of its greatness. If a role or set of rolesis to be found for Harper as an adjunct of Regenstein, the actual physical distance between thetwo libraries is too great simply to relegate a basicfunction, like Reserve, to Harper in the anticipa-TABLE 1: CANTEEN USE COUNTS, MONDAY-FRIDAY, OCTOBER 6-11, 1975Hour Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday6:30 p.m. 4 2 0 8 1 0 6 3 2 12 4 0 4 5 37:30 9 7 0 18 5 4 7 4 1 17 4 0 6 0 08:30 20 21 22 29 18 16 16 13 13 18 25 2 5 6 49:30 27 x 25 28 x 24 30 x 30 20 x 35 3 5 310:30 15 3 16 x 28 24 x 8 32 x 12 9 —11:30 x 6 1 3 3 0 4 15 8 1 4 0 —12:30 0 0 0 3 3 0 6 1 1 0 0 0 —TABLE 2: REGENSTEIN VENDING MACHINE SALES,WEEKLY TOTALSNovember December24-30, 1975 1-7, 1975Users' Canteen Coffee 7710 cups 8522 cupsMilk 1208 ctns 973 ctnsCandy 7607 pes 6699 pesSoft Drinks 3863 cups 3500 cupsStaff Canteen Coffee 1420 cups 956 cupsMilk 316 ctns 277 ctnsCandy 385 pes 410 pesSoft Drinks 800 cups 700 cups57tion that the University Library system wouldcontinue to be as efficient as if its basic functionswere all under one roof. We do believe that thelocation of Harper respective to Regenstein requires that the two be thought of primarily as independent entities.As a matter of fact, after the construction ofRegenstein, Harper's destiny was the subject of awhole series of separate decisions as to enlargement and remodeling. Harper was then destinedas a separate College Library. It is now fairly obvious that the idea of creating a specific Collegeambiance in Harper had a source elsewhere thanin the inclinations of undergraduates at The University of Chicago. College students here arenoticeably more inclined to be assimilationiststhan separatists. In this, their life- styles are inkeeping with their educational experience; for theCollege, except for the common-core courses, isnot an entity apart from the graduate Divisionsand professional Schools. The intermingling observable in course offerings and classroom buildings has its Library analogue in Regenstein' s collection. Moreover, given Harper's present holdings, one can not go to work there and be certainthat the holdings will suffice for pursuit of anysubject except introductory college-level courses.The point here is not an implicit argument for abroadening of Harper's resources, but only tosuggest a major way in which Harper appears tohave been an artificial creation — one which hasrun against the grain of actuality in undergraduatelife at Chicago.Our Committee believes that, if Harper is approached in some different terms but is stilltreated as an entity in its own right, it has thepotential to develop a more active identity. Someof this potential has been in the process of becoming fact this year. In particular, Harper's locationon the south edge of the Quadrangles, in the midstof the Humanities and Social Sciences complex,has attracted increased daytime use. It is not uncommon to find the main reading room filled tonear capacity on weekday afternoons. It seems tous that commuters, a growing body of students,would find Harper especially useful if they couldleave their books and other necessaries there forinterim periods during the day. In the evening,there is no reason why Harper could not potentially absorb a considerable amount of the study-hall use of Regenstein (given its location relativeto Burton- Judson, Woodward Court, International House, and Breckenridge), if it were madeas accessible and appealing as Regenstein interms of hours, amenities, and campus bus trans portation. We suggest the following particulars asways in which Harper might be able to come intoits own by becoming more comparable to Regenstein:1 . The lighting in Harper is inadequate in beingtoo distant and diffuse; a source of light for eachindividual reading location would be a great improvement. Our Committee has received anumber of complaints on this score.2. Harper's hours, and those of the Weiss Coffee Shop, should be extended to match those ofRegenstein.3. Harper should be made a stop on all campusbus/minibus routes.4. The underlit condition of the Quadrangles'approach to Harper makes after-dark access apersonal safety risk. It would appear to be generally advantageous to have brighter illuminationalong the principal walkways of the central campus.5. Harper at present does not match the seasonal comfort levels of heating, cooling, and ventilation at Regenstein. Harper is oppressivelywarm and humid in summer, chilly and drafty inwinter. (However, Regenstein seems to have anexcessively high level of air moisture in winter,and Harper does not.)6. Even in this era of reduced maintenancelevels, Harper is noticeably dustier than Regenstein is.7. A faster elevator to serve Harper would contribute to an upgrading of its facilities.8. An exit as well as an entrance control shouldbe instituted at Harper, for book checking andeffective exclusion of food and beverages.9. Lockers should be made available in Harper(perhaps with open grillwork to make checkingof them easier), and they could be offered as afree-of-charge amenity to attract larger numbersof users.10. Another attraction for Harper might be aspecial policy allowing smoking in designatedsmaller rooms in the extreme west wing.11. Because of the third-floor location ofHarper Library, its book-drop would be a greaterconvenience if it were usable on a 24-hour basis.5. ConclusionThis report has grown lengthy through attendingto a variety of matters — of fact, of possibility, ofprocedure, even of mundane detail. The intentionof our Committee in all of this has been to promote, by better providing for, the "quality of life"in Regenstein and Harper. On balance, the most58important things we feel we have to offer in thisReport are, first, our perception of Regenstein' sinclusive value for faculty and students atChicago, and, second, our insistance on a carefully maintained set of human priorities governingthe uses made of the building. Much of the rest ofwhat we have said here is occupied with practicalmeasures for the preservation of this precious resource in our midst. But it ought to have beenclear all along, and we wish in conclusion to emphasize, that Regenstein can only be made to workin its unique and complex fashion if all of thosewho work in the building will cooperate. Money,remodeling, refurbishing, enforcement policies,and extra personnel can only set a course. Unlessthe University community will put group interestabove self-interest, by realizing that self-interestis best served through equitable and reasonablecontrols on use and behavior, Regenstein will notbe able to remain and will not be allowed to remain the great heart of the Quadrangles. It appears literally true that the greatness of Regenstein depends not only upon the large vision andgenerosity that brought it into being, but nowupon the sustaining efforts and voluntary cooperation of its staff and those large numbers of faculty and students who find it superbly adapted totheir habits of work and way of life at The University of Chicago.Signed:Brian A. GerrishEmile KarafiolJanel M. Mueller {Chairman)Arnold W. RavinPhilip RemlerClifford TabinSusan TempletonAnthony TurkevichDissenting:William A. Ringler, Jr.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe Committee wishes to record further its particular appreciation for the help it has receivedfrom the expressions of opinion of the followingpersons: Gage Andrews, David Bevington,Warner S. Bloomberg III, Bruce Burgess, PeterDembowski, Dennis Dickinson, Ray Gadke,John Golden, Janet R. Heller, Nathan Jacobson,Morgan Jenkins, Michael F. La Plante, SteveListich, John Martin, Janet Mezgolits, Ian Muel ler, Bill Murphy, Peter Novick, Sara Paretsky,Robin Roman, Heinrich Schultz, Ron Sears,Mary Speer, William Veeder, Charles Wegener,and the seventeen members of the RegensteinSerials Department. Naturally these persons arenot to be held accountable for any part of thepreceding Report. That responsibility is theCommittee's.APPENDIX A21 February 1976Professor Janel MuellerCommittee on the Quality of Life in the RegensteinDear Janel:The mess resulting from the transportation ofbeverages in the Regenstein Library results frombehavior patterns caused in considerable part bythe physical environment. By changing the environment the behavior patterns can be changed.Any enlargement or improvement of the food andbeverage facilities in the Library will only engrainmore deeply habits we wish to discourage.In order to channel the existing behavior patterns in a direction that will not be damaging tothe Library, I recommend that the student-facultycoffee shop be removed from the Regenstein andthat the C Shop in Mandel Hall be improved toprovide additional service and more attractivesurroundings.For a user of the Regenstein to get a cup ofcoffee at the C Shop takes little or no more timeand effort than to get it at the present facilities onA-level of the Library. A person iji the PQ sectionof the Regenstein must walk approximately onehundred paces to get to the coffee shop onA-level. This takes about two minutes (slightlylonger if one waits for the elevator). The distancefrom the front entrance of the Regenstein to thedoor of the C Shop within Mandel Hall is approximately the same distance, one hundred paces;but the walk takes less than two minutes becausethere are fewer obstacles. The distance is evenless if the parking lot door of Regenstein is used.The coffee shop on the A-level of Regenstein isovercrowded and causes a mess merely becauseusers of the Library have developed the habit ofgoing to A-level rather than to the C Shop. If thecoffee shop is removed from Regenstein, users willfind it just as convenient to go to the C Shop.In bygone days "I'd walk a mile for a Camel"was considered an effective advertising slogan. I59hope that we have not become so effete that weare now unwilling to walk a hundred paces for acup of coffee.Sincerely yours,William A. Ringler, Jr.Note — April 12, 1976: The foregoing is to be appendix A of theCQLR Report. Mr. Ringler has decided to let this letter to meserve as the expression of his dissenting opinion. J.M.APPENDIX BJanuary 26, 1976Mr. Stanley McElderry, DirectorUniversity LibraryDear Mr. McElderry:At a joint meeting of the faculty-student Committee on the Quality of Life in Regenstein and thestaff Public Service Committee held last Fridayafternoon, there was unanimous support for theproposal made by Howard Dillon regarding containment of food, beverages, and smoking in theLibrary. Specifically, seven of the ten faculty andstudent members of the CQLRL were present toMarch 1976As we complete our second decade of service, itis sobering to reflect on the lives of 8,000 studentswhom we have known, some only fleetingly,others intensively and in depth. They have taughtus much about their needs, ourselves, the University as a setting for living and learning, the natureand quality of the society in which our lives areimbedded.We are often asked what the prevailing emotional problems of today's students are, how theydiffer from those of students in previous years.Twenty years of scanning clinic use on this andother campuses have led us to avoid catch phrasesfor these have only a brief vogue. In an earlierreport we called attention to the fact that in thepast half century the period of adolescence was cast affirmative votes at the meeting.We had a single modification to suggest. Webelieve that effective control of smoking in theLibrary requires restricting it to well- ventilated,totally enclosed spaces, which means rooms withwalls, ceilings, and doors. It appears futile to ourCommittee to attempt to designate some sectionsof the open floor space as smoking areas, and weforward our hearty support of the Dillon reportwith specification that containment of smokingmust be made as effective as the measures to contain food and beverages would be.Both Committees also believe that the supportand cooperation of Library users and personnelalike will be forthcoming when the Dillon proposal is implemented. We regard the target date ofthe beginning of spring quarter as an outside limit,that is, the maximum amount of time that shouldbe allowed to elapse before implementation. Withthis in mind, both Committees intend to move instantly to devise a preparatory public informationcampaign.Yours truly,Janel Muellerfor the Committeeon the Quality of Life in Regensteinfirst discovered, then described as prolonged, andlater as vanishing. Rapidly passing college generations have been called lost, beat, silent, alienated,uncommitted, too radically committed, and nowpassive. Life-styles have been typified as flaming,hippie, flower, drug, and now income-oriented.Most young people ignore labels as irrelevant,and those who enroll themselves under such descriptive terms appear to do so in order to anchorthemselves and avoid drifting in a nameless void.Perhaps most important, labels are so transientthat they have little predictive value.Observations about youth have an analogy toforecasting weather. For if even weather, scannedby highly sophisticated electronic equipmentwhich brings the entire globe under scrutiny, stillresponds with whimsicality to embarrass theforecaster, how infinitely more elusive is the pre-TENSION AND GROWTH:ANNUAL REPORT OF THE STUDENTMENTAL HEALTH CLINIC, 1974-7560diction and explanation of human behavior. Thereare those who employ global statements to copewith this dilemma, but, as we all know, shibboleths quickly disappear. Faddish explanationsobscure the fact that behavior is only an expression of personal emotional homeostasis and that itresults from a subtle interplay between an individual and the cultural conditions in which helives.Depression and acutely disruptive anxiety areuniversal illnesses whose casualties are myriad.Uniquely prone to the rapid build-up of thesestates, adolescents and young adults may indulgein behavior which is only a fleeting expression oftheir struggle to achieve a balance between theirreasoning and experiencing selves, to bring oneinto harmonious interaction with the other whilecoping with the stress of their rapidly changingrelationship to the world.Our purpose in these reports is to identify conditions which appear to undermine the process bywhich students define and equip themselves fortheir life work. In relating high clinic users to theirproportionate numbers on campus, we share withour colleagues what we have learned about persistent areas of discomfort. Thus, while the currentgeneration of students is still resident on campus,the University may bring about changes in conditions of living and learning.The Young and the Newly ArrivedOur custom is to report each academic year at theend of the Fall quarter of the current year so thatwe can monitor broad shifts in clinic use betweenthis and last year's classes. Certain phenomenaare unchanging: clinic use as measured by rate perthousand students continues to rise despitefluctuations in general enrollment (Tables 1 and2). Use by undergraduates tends to be 10 percenthigher than their numbers on campus.But we did not see large numbers of enteringstudents in their first weeks on campus, a signal tous that the initial acculturation process functionedwell. Nevertheless, by the end of the academicyear 1974-75, about 10 percent of first year students experienced sufficient distress to find theirown way to our doors (Tables 3 and 4).Data available to us for the first time indicatedthat for 1974-75 and again in the Fall Quarter of1975, clinic users were younger than nonusers.Seventy-four percent of undergraduates whom weknew were twenty-one years or under as compared with 69 percent of all undergraduates; 74percent of graduate clinic users were twenty-five years or under as compared with 55 percent of allgraduate students.It is the young, then, and the newly arrivedwho are more prone to the loss of energy andhopefulness and who signal their distress by seeking help. Among the newly arrived, initiates in thegraduate divisions or professional schools appearin the clinic population at a rate 10 percent abovetheir proportionate campus registration.We observed in our last report that some departments and professional schools seem to haveways of easing students into their first year ofgraduate work, while other departments assumethat young adults are and should be able to useinstitutional givens to find their own direction.This is a reasonable assumption. And yet, as wehave said, it is also a reasonable human need tohave an affirming contact with those in authority.We suggested the value of individualized attentionspaced over the year to provide for that need in amanner which would strengthen students in theirability to tolerate the lonely work of masteringintellectual data in an environment which is newto them and in which they do not have access tothose mentors with whom they worked in undergraduate years. We do not know to what degreeefforts in this direction were made in the pastyear, but we can report a slight drop in thenumber of newly arrived graduate students whobecame clinic users. This was particularly noticeable in the Fall Quarter, 1975.Women. In the past year we have also noted achanging use of our service by young women. Weno longer see, as reported earlier, heavy use byvery young women. Within our clinic populationundergraduate women bear the same proportionto graduate women as they do in their generalcampus registration: one-third are undergraduatesand two-thirds are graduates. In the pastacademic year (1974-75) the number of womenwho came to the clinic was only 10 percent higherthan their proportionate numbers on campus.Several factors may account for this. There ismore formal and informal opportunity for womento discuss mutual problems of social andpsychological development. There is increasingacceptance that the pursuit of an intellectual roleneed not require sacrifice of a gratifying personallife. We have observed more effort on the part ofcouples to help each other in adjusting to doublecareers, a realistically difficult and challengingtask even when emotional problems do not severely jeopardize a union.Yet, each new step toward freedom, in this case,61to mention only one parameter, freedom forwomen to pursue a scholarly career and to havetheir work compensated on an equal basis withmen, can also have a lockstep effect. Not allwomen want such a career. Some look toward therole of wife and mother not as an escape fromfinding a vocation but as an affirmative choice. Ontoday's campus such a choice may prove difficultto defend and may be accompanied by loss ofself-esteem.Men. A larger number of men are now finding itsomewhat easier to express their own emotionalpain and to seek help with persistent problems.This has resulted in a more balanced proportion ofmen to women in our clinic population. We cannot report any significant number of men seekinghelp in reaction to the changing role of women.Rather they seem to come to an earlier recognition of something missing in their lives, a lackwhich is experienced by both men and women.This undefined void is an added difficulty in ourwork with them. Before turning to a discussion ofthis problem, we would like to examine the relationship between clinic use and the completion ofan academic career.Clinic Use and Graduation from the CollegeAlthough the clinic is only one of many servicesavailable to students, it is important to examine itsuse by a clearly circumscribed cohort of studentsto determine its effect on their academic careers.First year undergraduates who enter in a givenyear with expected date of graduation four yearslater provide us with such an opportunity.We have previously reported the fact that clinicusers are skewed by the presence of many students who come in on their own or are referredbecause of severe problems. They are at the pointof dropping out or have already withdrawn. Wewould, therefore, expect a lower graduation ratefor them than for their peers whom we do not see.Despite this, clinic users graduate or continue inschool at a higher rate than nonusers (Table 5and 6). We reported a shift for the Class of 1974when six months after the time of expected graduation, clinic users who graduated were one percent under nonusers. Eighteen months later, thenumber of users who graduated were 5 percenthigher than nonusers. With the Class of 1975, sixmonths after the date of expected graduation, 5percent fewer users than nonusers havegraduated. However, since clinic users in thisclass are more than double the number of non- users still enrolled in the University, we expectthat at this time next year students who havemade use of the clinic will again show a higherrate of graduation than nonusers. Like their peerswhom we did not know, in each class some willgraduate earlier and some later.Between one-fifth and one-fourth will achievehigh honors and awards in the humanities and thesciences. We stress this not because to be valuedstudents they must achieve such awards, butrather as a reflection of the broad scope of clinicuse by students in all categories of endeavor.We have closely scrutinized the use made ofthe clinic by students of three graduatingclasses — 1973, 1974, and 1975. The majority wereseen within their first two years of residence, and,for the most part, duration of treatment was oneor two quarters. Yet we do not want to convey theimpression that the painful ego states they described yielded easily to our efforts.In general their wish to leave the Universityappeared to be an attempt to resolve and relieveinternal confusion and suffering by external manipulation. As students confided more about thenature of their difficulties, what was prominentwas their expectation that more ought to be donefor them, that somewhere there existed a community in which their needs would be appropriately met. Among these were students forwhom a chance comment or interchange with agiven instructor was experienced as a cruellywounding blow. Their response was to retreatinto depressive states, avoiding class and accumulating incompletes. A few reported backgrounds in which parents were accustomed tobask in their children's successes but who wouldfall apart, become anxious or angry, if approachedwith their problems. Understandably such students were fearful of reaching out to authorityfigures for guidance or direction when needed. Itwas more customary for them to retreat. Thedelay in confronting their problems then plungedthem into deeper emotional turmoil.A second group of students, overly praised intheir home environment, appeared swollen withunrealistic expectations of others' responses tothem. When this was not forthcoming, theyrapidly became affronted and some even experienced disintegration. A few would complain ofmemory failure, idealizing an earlier time whenthey had been able to commit vast quantities ofmaterial to memory and to win praise from theirteachers. They seemed to lack a solid core ofconfidence and pleasure in their work, mourningthe loss of earlier relationships with mentors in62whose admiration they thrived. They were accustomed to feasting on this and experienced a moreneutral environment as depriving. It was verydifficult to awaken and stimulate observation oftheir own behavior, at least as a first step towardusing their very real powers.We were also made aware that a third group ofstudents was accustomed, even in the early yearsof high school, to use stimulants or chemicals asan escape from or relief of chronically painful egostates. The task of enabling such students tostruggle with academic demands was extremelydifficult and a heavy tax on the facilities of theclinic. Our work with such students was complicated by the fact that they were anesthetizing thecognitive and perceptive faculties which were required to identify antecedents to the state of despair or unmanageable anxiety which led them toemploy self-medication. There was an amoebalike quality to their mode of coping with life, atendency to ooze in the direction of sustenance,but not very far, and to encircle what they couldfind at hand. Their propensity for shame waskeen, their anxiety at the task of harnessing anddirecting their exceptional abilities was acute.Tension and GrowthIn the past 20 years we have witnessed an almostcomplete overturning of rules of conduct affectingdormitory behavior and interpersonal relations atall levels. Earlier strictures which were said tocreate anxiety or induce depression have beenswept away. Yet the rate of clinic use rises: lastyear the total number of in-person interviews increased by 21 percent. At the time of this report,eight months into the academic year of 1975-76,interviews have risen 14 percent over last yearat this time.We noted a striking absence of zest in moststudents who came to us but this was particularlytrue for undergraduates. That elasticity which weassociate with youth, the ability to turn from oneself-affirming activity to another was notablymissing. In spirit they lacked tensile strength.It is characteristic of adolescents to try outmany modes of behavior, to seek many role models while forging their own. Perhaps this generation as none before has been inundated throughthe electronic media with a heaping bargain tableof hastily and shoddily assembled life-styles. Themost violent and exotic behavior has been romanticized. Has this acted as an incentive to weakenimpulse control among young people who alreadyhave problems in managing their impulses? Has it brought about postponement of the need to thinkthrough and define life-styles and goals which areappropriate for themselves?As we worked with the students we have beendescribing, we served as the repository of theirpainful experiences, their fears and anxieties. Weabsorbed their stress and offered them space toexamine their behavior, their wishes, their needs.By small increments they achieved a deepeningand strengthening of their capacity for self-observation, for monitoring their own needs, forchoosing their own standards and values, theirown course of action. This led them to feel betterabout themselves, and, with an increase in well-being, they experienced a spurt in energy to complete old tasks and reach out to new goals.Even in the brief span of their work with us weknow that students can benefit from continuity,from an opportunity to think through difficultchoices without indiscriminate sampling, to absorb the pain of disappointment, and to deploytheir strength in new endeavors. It is through suchdisciplining experience that psychic structure isdeepened, that tensile strength is developed, thatgreater buoyancy of human spirit can beachieved.It is instructive of what our role with youthmust be when we find that the opportunity formanifold roles, for gratifying and productive lifestyles which can be evolved along many diverselines, appears to create additional stress for youngpeople. Youth clearly needs structure and supportto guide and direct it toward reasonable goals, todevelop the ability to absorb stress and to rebound with renewed vigor. In an earlier era,adults seemed less afraid of fulfilling a strong roleas older counselors. We cannot measure the crippling effect of such close guidance on previousgenerations, but, as we observe our own, neithercan we report that abdication of such a role withaccompanying wide open choice of behavior hasbrought about healthier conditions for growth.The work of this clinic spans two decades.We know that among the 8,000 students whocame to us were those for whom our help wasminimal and at best ineffective. We regret thatsome students, for their own reasons, did not useour services; they might have been helped. We doknow that there were students for whom our intervention was life-preserving, who were broughtback from crippling suicidal depression or othersevere forms of emotional illness. They have goneon into many professions; some have completedcreative research which has increased man'sknowledge about himself and society.63As we review the responsibility we have sharedwith our colleagues, we have been able to reportsome gains from an improved dormitory system,the presence of an active staff of advisors, and agreater involvement by faculty. We have foundour association with students, with our colleaguesin Administration, Faculty and Student HealthService, an enlightening and enriching experience. For it is in the warmth of understandingwhen stress is acute, in the exchange of ideaswhen difficult problems confront us, that knowledge is advanced, that the human spirit is invigorated.As we peer into a third decade, we know thatwe are living through a time when openness ofchoice is seriously abridged by economic conditions; its depressing and anxiety-provoking limitations affect the quality of all of our lives. Yet wecan say, in the words of a poetess:The brain is wider than the sky,For put them side by side,The one the other will includeWith ease, and you beside.Five Year TrendThe tables which follow describe clinic use for theperiod July 1, 1970, through June 30, 1975. A preview of clinic use by first- and second-year undergraduates for the current year is included. Asstated above, rate of clinic use per thousand students increased; the total number of interviews with these students rose by 21 percent. Althoughas in previous years we are reporting that moststudents are seen for five or six interviews, thesefigures represent only the past year and do notrepresent the number of times students may beseen during their residence on campus.Eleven percent of undergraduates and 7 percentof graduate students consulted the clinic. Hospitalizations rose by one-third. For further treatment, 3 percent were referred to privatetherapists, 8 percent to the Out-Patient Department of Psychiatry, and 3 percent to other clinics.John F. KramerMiriam ElsonClinic StaffPsychiatristsPeter B. JohnstonJohn F. KramerJerome A. Winer (through December 1975)Psychiatric Social WorkersMiriam ElsonAlice IchikawaBetty KohutAnna Mary WallaceSecretariesPenny Juergens (from October 1975)Jean Schmitz (from January 1976)TABLE 1: STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH CLINIC USAGE,JULY 1, 1970-JUNE 30, 1975Number of Number ofRegistered Students Rate Per 1000Academic Students* Consulting MHC Students1974-75 8,691 632 72.71973-74 8,550 584 68.31972-73 8,627 561 .65.01971-72 8,636 549 63.51970-71 10,907 614 56.2*Prepared by the Registrar's Office, this represents the total number of differentstudents enrolled for at least one quarter during the academic year.64TABLE 2: ANNUAL USE OF THE STUDENT MENTAL HEALTHCLINIC, JULY 1, 1970-JUNE 30, 1975Total Under Care 1974-75 1973-74 1972-73 1971-72 1970-71703 655 629 621 669NewFormerReturning in theCurrent Year 474158*71 437147*71 426135*68 397152*72 405209*55Unduplicated Total(New and Former) 632 584 561 549 614*Carry-over from previous academic year included in totals.TABLE 3: CLINIC USE BY GRADUATES AND UNDERGRADUATESCOMPARED WITH TOTAL CAMPUS REGISTRATION,JULY 1, 1970-JUNE 30, 1975Year Undergraduates GraduatesMHC% TotalRegistered % MHC% TotalRegistered %1974-751973-741972-731971-721970-71 4141404047.5 3129282930 5959606052.5 6971727170TABLE 4: UNDERGRADUATE CLINIC USE BY ACADEMICCLASS DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF RESIDENCE,JULY 1, 1970-DECEMBER 31, 19751975 1976 1977 1978 1979Size of Entering Class 563 630 525 599 651Clinic ContactIn first year 59 68 54 59 26*In second year 58 65 69 24*Total in first two years 117 133 123*Through December 31, 1975.65TABLE 5: CLINIC USE BY THE CLASSES*OF 1973, 1974, AND 1975Number PercentNon- Non-Total User User Total User User1973 485 123 362 100 25% 75%1974 596 120 476 100 20% 80%1975 557 121 436 100 22% 78%*Only those matriculating as first-year students are included.TABLE 6: CLINIC USE BY THE CLASSESOF 1973, 1974, AND 1975 BYPERCENT GRADUATING*StillGraduated Enrolled Withdrawn1973User 65 2 33Non-User 52 1 471974User 63 4 33Non-User 58 3 391975User 51 19 30Non-User 56 8 36 TABLE 7: STUDENTS HOSPITALIZED INALBERT MERRITT BILLINGS HOSPITALFOR EMOTIONAL DIFFICULTIES,JULY 1, 1970-JUNE 30,1975ThroughOther ThroughYear Total Services MHC1974-75 181'2 11 81973-74 ll3 5 61972-73 10 3 71971-72 141,3 6 81970-71 123 4 8*As of December 1975. 1. One student was hospitalized three times.2. One student was hospitalized twice.3. Two students were hospitalized twice.TABLE 8: ANNUAL NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS* BY PERCENTAGE,JULY 1, 1970-JUNE 30,1975Number ofInterviews 1974-75 1973-74 1972-73 1971-72 1970-711 23 26 29 21 222-5 47 46 47 50 446-10 18 17 15 15 2011-20 8 7 6 8 8Over 21 4 4 3 6 6*If we reported the number of times students are seen forthe total period of their residence, rather than annually, therewould be a shift toward the longer intervals.66THE 358TH CONVOCATION ADDRESS:OBLIGATIONS TO FUTURE GENERATIONSBY JAMES M. GUSTAFSONMarch 19, 1976After I submitted the title of this address, it occurred to me that you might perceive it to be apitch for the Alumni Fund. While I commend thatas a worthy cause, it is beneath the dignity of thisoccasion, at least in this university, to say moreabout it.In the very recent past a series of events havemade us conscious of the future of humanity in adifferent way. Many immigrants to this continentwere surely oriented toward a future, a future ofgreat aspirations with a belief in almost unlimitedcapacities to fulfill them. But we have been saturated with accounts of a dismal prospect for thehuman future: we have predictions of a geneticapocalypse coming from the pollution of the genepool, of exhaustion of fossil fuel resources, ofpopulation growth that will issue in a humanholocaust, of the intractable character of socialproblems, of depletion of many of the necessaryconditions not only for life as we have known it,but even for the survival of the species. Jeremiahsand Amoses abound, and they rail against scienceand technology, against what are judged to be illusions of human control of the consequences ofinnovations and events made by us and by ourimmediate forefathers. At the same time, we aresubjected to new Utopian visions: to views thatthe future is open and undetermined, to visions ofa genetically better species, of societies whichwill embody distributive justice according toequalitarian principles, and of boundless hope.The Isaiahs come forth telling of a future in whichthe lion and the lamb shall lie down together, andthe rough places be made a plain. Arguments aremarshalled and evidences adduced to persuadeus either that the jig is up, and that seeking Nirvana is really the true way of life, or that humanintelligence can be harnessed to realize thefulfillment of a secular version of the Kingdomthat biblical writers expected. Puritan theologians in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in their discussions of religiouslife, wrote about a "new sense" and a "newsight." It is not inappropriate to borrow thoseterms to think about not only our education, butalso the condition of the human spirit in relation tothe future. New "sight" we have. Sophisticatedmeans of cost-benefit analysis amass data aboutpotential consequences of human action that wecan ill- afford to ignore. Explorations based on thevarious sciences lead to proposals for copingwith, if not solving, the population problem, thenutrition problem, the energy problem, the healthproblem, and many more. We are flooded withinformation, and flooded with differing interpretations of its significance; we do our best to sort outthe arguments made by men and women of unusual "sight" as they come to diametrically opposed judgments about the safety of nuclearenergy, the efficacy of the green revolution, theviability of urban school systems, the economicpolicies that will bring both stability and just distribution of benefits. If there is anything thatdeeply impresses us from our liberal education, itis that there are many "sights," many ways ofseeing the human condition and its prospectivedevelopment in the decades to come. The tasks ofhuman rationality are not made simpler, butrather more difficult as we are forced to elect forour personal lives and for public life which views,which "sights," are most persuasive, which plansof life collectively and individually are mostworthy of our adherence.But our being informed, and our thinking aboutinformation, I believe, must take place withinwhat the Puritans called a "new sense of things."A new sense of things refers to our affectivities, toour passions and our desires, to our values, towhat weighs on the "heart" (to invoke an ancientmetaphor). I want to lift up to consciousness three"new senses of things" that I believe many of ushave, and that are also necessary conditions for67the future of humanity. They are a new sense ofinterdependence, a new sense of finitude, and anew sense of obligation.First, a new sense of interdependence. Whoamong us has not literally felt that somehow ourphysical well-being is related to the quality of theair we breathe when a southeast wind carries thefumes of Gary to the gracious living of HydePark? Who among us has not come from a coursein human genetics wondering about both the"good" genes and the "deleterious" genes ourancestors have naturally bequeathed us, and we,mixed with those of another, will bequeath to thenext generation, and then on into the future? Inmoments of loneliness the appearance of a friendhas helped us to see that no one of us has theresources autonomously to get on from day today. An oil embargo suddenly gives us a sense ofour interdependence with other nations. The passions for social revolution in many parts of theworld, evoked by the feelings of powerlessnessthat millions of persons have, make it clear to usthat what benefits our way of life is viewed bythem as exploitation of their resources. A sense ofinterdependence is thrust upon us from manysources even if we resist it.It is not intelligible to say that we are dependentupon future generations, but it is clear that theways of life available to them are in considerablemeasure causally dependent upon our stewardship not only of the natural world, but of institutions that preserve justice and liberty, that preserve the creative aesthetic and intellectual treasures of human creation, and of cities and of country. We are driven by an insatiable appetite, alltoo frequently, which devours resources, whichheedlessly neglects aesthetic, social, and moralvalues for the sake of immediate gratification,which leads to actions toward ends that are atmost one generation away. We act as if we stillbelieved there was an infinite providential powerthat could overcome the laws of nature andmiraculously replenish the resources necessaryfor life — natural, social, moral, and spiritual. Buta shock of recognition of interdependence is uponus; a new sense of interdependence is awakeningwhich warns us of limits we cannot go beyondwithout violating the interests of future generations, of restraints we must place on ourselves ifthe fragile combinations of elements that supportall of life are not to be irrevocably and irreversiblydisturbed. The sense of interdependence becomesa sense of accountability — accountability for future generations.Second, a new sense of finitude. To argue for or against the "limits of growth" is not my purpose,but to call our attention to a new sense of finitudeis appropriate. To have a "sight" not of an eternalworld with endless replenishment of all the conditions for human life, but of a finite world in which,so far as we now can perceive, good things cancome to an end, quickens a sense of finitude. Notonly individual finitude, that each of us shall die;not only the finitude of cultures and social institutions, that our culture can well become a relicsurpassed in power by cultures we know not; butalso the finitude of much that makes life on earthworth living. To the historic religious consciousness of the West this is no novel sense: prophetsof old knew that the species man did not bring theworld into being and the species man could neverhave the power and the wisdom to determinecompletely its destiny. Many of us have lost thereligious sensibility of the psalmist who remarkedthat we are a little lower than the angels, but wehave thrived on that high status. We have properly exploited the capacities that have evolved inour species, that have enabled us to be creators ofculture and science. But in our self- surpassingfrom generation to generation we have often lostan appropriate sense that we are a finite biologicalspecies and do not have rights to violate heedlessly the gifts we have received.I mean not to suggest a romantic return to amythical state of nature, nor to suggest that science and technology are the demonic super-personal forces of evil that some Amoses perceivethem to be. I mean to suggest a delicately appropriate sense of finitude as being fitting: one thataccepts the reality of our deaths in spite of theachievements which delay it, that accepts the reality of the perils and harms we can create for futuregenerations if we act as if the world were notfinite. We need a sense of finitude to preserve forfuture generations the resources for their lives, aswe need to exercise our finite powers to developconditions that will insure some richness to theirlives. We need a sense of finitude that passionately realizes that more is given to us in natureand in culture that we can take credit for creating,and that in our cultivation of what is given wehave no right to deprive subsequent generationsof at least as much as we have been given.The sense of interdependence and the sense offinitude issue in anew sense of obligations, obligations to future generations. This is an od<d usage of"obligation" no doubt, for we normally reservethe word for voluntary commitments to knownpersons. It is intentionally stronger than "concern" for future generations. I mean for it to con-68vey a force. The interests, or if you prefer astronger claim, the rights of future generationsmust be respected and protected in our generationand in each subsequent one. I do not mean tosuggest an inspired notion of creating a betterworld for them in which the anxieties and struggles we bear are eliminated, in which the conditions of peace are eternally secure and the conditions for actual social justice irrevocably fixed.Such romantic notions themselves overreach theproper bounds of finitude: they assume we canknow what is best for those yet to come. I mean toindicate obligations to preserve and develop theconditions in which persons and communities canhave the same respect we owe to our contemporaries and the same respect we expect fromthem; in which institutions might prevail whichenable them to exercise their freedoms, theircapacities for self-determination that are intrinsicto humanity; in which they are not unjustly deprived of the benefits of culture and human productivity by our wantonness and greed; in whichthey can experience the beauty of the earth weenjoy for ourselves. We have obligations to themwhich bind our actions, for the sake of their rightsand interests.A "new sense of things." For the Puritans whoused this term it was the effect of a new affection,a new orientation toward Being, or toward God.They may have been correct, whether we sharetheir theological and religious concerns or not. A"new sight" gained by our education isinsufficient in itself to guide our choices and ouractions. A "new sense" — of interdependence, offinitude, of obligations to future generations — thiscomes from a new orientation of the "heart," analteration if not transformation of our values, areordering of our desires. But this too, we believe, can be quickened as the human spirit absorbs inexperience the new sight of things we have allreceived from a truly liberal education.James M. Gustafson is University Professor inthe Divinity School.SUMMARY OF THE 358THCONVOCATIONThe 358th Convocation was held on Friday,March 19, 1976, in Rockefeller Memorial Chapel.John T. Wilson, President of the University, presided.A total of 355 degrees were awarded: 42Bachelor of Arts, 23 Master of Arts in the Division of the Humanities, 2 Master of Fine Arts, 37Master of Arts in the Division of the Social Sciences, 3 Master of Arts in Teaching, 3 Master ofScience in Teaching, 2 Master of Arts in theSchool of Social Service Administration, 4 Master of Science in the Division of the BiologicalSciences and The Pritzker School of Medicine, 14Master of Science in the Division of the PhysicalSciences, 14 Master of Arts in the DivinitySchool, 10 Master of Arts in the Graduate Library School, 1 15 Master of Business Administration, 1 Doctor of Law, 1 Doctor of Medicine, and84 Doctor of Philosophy.James F. Gustafson, University Professor inthe Divinity School, delivered the ConvocationAddress, entitled "Obligations to Future Generations."69REPORT OF THE STUDENT OMBUDSMAN FOR THEWINTER QUARTER, 1976A cursory review of the quarterly reports issuedby the Office of the Ombudsman and published inthe Record since the inception of the office in 1968would show that from quarter to quarter and fromyear to year most of the problems we handle fallinto several clearly delineated areas and oftenclosely resemble or repeat one another. A studyof case reports from past years and a couple ofmonths' experience gives each academic year'snew Ombudsman a fairly adequate idea how hemight handle most of these cases and shapes theexpectations he will have for their eventual resolution. Ideally, his efforts help remove the causeof recurring problems as much as they patch updamage in individual cases. As stated in theOmbudsman's final report for 1972-73, "TheOmbudsman is most successful when he gets theregular administrative channels working, so thatthey may serve the overwhelming majority of students who never see him."I doubt, however, that everyone really expectsany problem area to disappear completely, oreven, perhaps, to show much improvement. Wecan at least report this year continuing success inhandling the bulk of these "routine" cases, mostof which, while they will keep reappearing, arerelatively simple for this office to resolve.In one area, however, where our effectivenessis quite uncertain, we face a sharp increase in thenumber and complexity of grievances. Some grading conflicts result from simple administrativemistakes, others from the misapplication of University regulations which arises out of misunderstanding on the part of either student or instructor. Both of these usually yield in the face ofTruth. But many others are less tractable, forgrading is a complex and apparently very sensitive issue which presents this office with somedistressingly persistent problems. I believe thatthe Ombudsman has been and should continue tobe helpful with other than merely administrativegrievances, but some people — not all faculty — find alarming an attempt by nonacademic personnel to help resolve (meddle in?)academic problems. I do not wish to speculate unduly on the implications of such an attitude, but I in turn find alarming anything vaguelylike a conviction that students should simply never question an instructor's performance in thisarea.Since there really exists no "regular administrative channel" through which grades may be appealed, it seems only natural that students occasionally seek our assistance and that we take ourinvestigative responsibilities seriously. This is notto suggest that we should have any role in judgingthe quality of a student's academic work. Suchjudgment must remain the exclusive province ofqualified academic personnel, and the instructorin any given course at this University has traditionally had — and most probably should retain— the right to set his own grading standards andthe responsibility for the final grade assigned toeach student in his class. It almost goes withoutsaying, however, that instructors at every levelmake mistakes, some of which are quite obviousand often have little to do with actual assessmentof a student's work. Even when the evidence isinconclusive, legitimate questions may arisewhich deserve the careful reconsideration of theinstructor or his colleagues.In most cases where an obvious mistake isbrought to an instructor's attention, he will recognize and correct it himself. For this reason,whenever a student asks for assistance on a grading matter, we generally decline to investigateuntil the student has himself spoken with his instructor. When student and instructor disagree ona point which we regard as legitimate, we willusually investigate, or urge reconsideration, orboth.In a recent case an instructor had informed astudent that he would receive a '4C" in thecourse. When the student received a "D," he requested an explanation and was told that the instructor had been "overruled by his department."We quickly discovered that no formal mechanismexists by which this department will overrule aninstructor. The instructor confirmed that he hadinformed the student he would receive a "C," butexplained that, shortly thereafter, concerned thathis grading of the entire class may have been toolenient, he informally sought the opinions of several colleagues. They agreed, so some gradeswere changed and this student received a "D."The student felt that he had been unfairly misled.70The instructor assured us that he wished to treatthe student fairly and agreed, on this basis, toreconsider the grade. Although, given thestudent's performance in the course, the "D"was a reasonable grade, it does seem unfair that astudent should be led unambiguously to expectone grade and then be given another. The problemis to decide where, or whether, to try to draw theline between fairness in grading and fairness in thetreatment of students.In another especially representative case, astudent had received five grades which averagedto a "B-." Each grade, he had been told, was tocount equally in determining the course grade.The instructor countered that he had graded twoof the early papers quite leniently, apparently inorder to give the student encouragement, and hadlater decided that the student really deserved a"C" for his work in the course. The student didnot explicitly question this judgment, but insistedon his right to the grade determined by averagingthe five grades actually assigned. Here again astudent was led to a clear expectation, inadvertently violated when the instructor reassessed hisannounced approach to determination of thecourse grade.Perhaps naively, I suggest that many, or evenmost, of the grade disputes we encounter might beprevented if our faculty would carefully state, asearly in the quarter as possible, exactly thosecriteria on which a student's course grade will bedetermined. How many papers, for example, willbe required? How many exams? How will they beweighed? Will the order in which the grades arereceived be significant? Will grades be curvedand, if so, on what scheme? The corollary, ofcourse, is that the criteria, once stated, should befollowed as closely as possible. It would also beextremely helpful if students and especially faculty would carefully familiarize themselves withgrading rules and regulations, especially those regarding registration for and assignment of thegrades W, WP, WF, F*, P, N, and R.These steps, however, will accomplish little inthe way of preventing those cases in which a student believes that the assessment of his work isinaccurate or that his grade is unfair for someother reason. As in years past, such cases aremost satisfactorily resolved when both studentand instructor hold their claims of infallibility inreserve and let themselves be guided by the judgment of other faculty members. When, however,an instructor will under no circumstances eitherreconsider or allow colleagues to review his verdict, we find ourselves hard put to render any constructive service. The majority of faculty involved in this sort of dispute have been willing toallow such a review. The remainder, I believe,have usually done themselves and their students adisservice.Willingness to allow this review is especiallyimportant, I believe, in the case of a particularlyharsh grade. To give an "F" to a student who hasattended class regularly and faithfully fulfilled all,perhaps even most, of the assigned course workshould never, in my opinion, be an easy decision.It will seldom, in any case, be well- received by astudent. If, however, such a decision is reviewedand seconded by a disinterested faculty memberfrom the same academic area, the unfortunatestudent, no less unfortunate for this endorsement,will usually be less likely to question hisinstructor's own judgment.This discussion is not wholly unrelated to thereal concern among Chicago students with rampant grade inflation on other campuses. I amneither prepared nor inclined to argue for lowerstandards at Chicago. I do believe that the currentemphasis placed on grades, both by students andby faculty sitting on graduate admissions committees, demands of faculty a careful examination ofcurrent grading practices and a renewed commitment to fairness in the application of whateverstandards are deemed appropriate. Since an "F"or a "D" can so easily mean "do not admit" toadmissions committees, I hope our faculty willcarefully consider what they intend such grades tomean when they decide to assign them.We continue to handle problems in most of theareas discussed in last quarter's report, but withfew exceptions, the cases have been unremarkable. While there is little of genuine interest to addto last quarter's remarks in these areas, I want tonote that we continue to get generally good cooperation in handling problems in student accounts,athletic facilities, housing, hospitals and clinicsbilling, and the library system.While the routine wait for an appointment at theStudent Gynecology Clinic still seems undesirably long, women with "urgent" (as distinguishedfrom "emergency") needs seem to be finding theclinic adequately flexible if they will themselvesbe "persistent" (the Chicago Maroon, Tuesday,April 13, 1976). We still entertain some hope thatthe clinic will move to ease the burden on physician time by implementing a regular, weekly session staffed by the specially trained nurses whocan quite competently perform routine screeningand sample procedures such as pap smears.We have encountered a number of cases in71widely different areas over the past few monthswhich indicate, by an essential similarity, that thefunction of the Office of the Ombudsman may bepoorly understood by many students. The Ombudsman is neither a student advocate nor anapologist for the University. Those who believehe is an apologist seldom seek our assistance. Anumber of students, however, come to us eachquarter with accumulated library or parking fines,for example, or late registration fees, who freelyadmit their guilt but think perhaps we will be ableto get them off by pleading any sort of extenuatingcircumstances. "Yes, I did shoot my mother-in-law, but she was an impossible woman." Unlikean attorney retained in this situation, the Ombudsman cannot necessarily be expected to try to"get them off." While there exists an importantargument for a student advocate, much as everyoffender is entitled to counsel, this office was notconceived to play the role. I mention this not todiscourage students from seeking our assistance,but to fend off expectations that we will not beable to fulfill.We do remain more than willing, insofar as weare competent, to advise students how they mightframe an appeal or petition for a waiver of fines.In the absence of a student advocate, we sometimes point out related precedents and advise howto put a case in the most favorable light. We arenot only willing but obligated to investigate anycase where a student feels he has been unfairlytreated. And we will certainly try to relay theview of a student with whom we disagree. Butunless our investigation gives us reason to concurwith a student's view of his grievance, we cannotsimply urge that his wish be granted. The all tooobvious result would be the destruction of thecredibility this office must have in order to operate effectively.I hasten to add that the Ombudsman haspressed many cases over the years which havebeen ultimately — and sometimes immediately— rejected. A recent case in point is our argumentthat University parking tickets should be enforcedagainst students no more strictly than they areagainst faculty and staff. Presently no Universitysanction will be brought against faculty and staff,but student violators will have their registration,transcripts, and degrees blocked until they payup. The patent unfairness of this policy is exacerbated by its utter and laughable ineffectiveness.This latter problem, at least, has recently beengreatly alleviated by inviting the Chicago PoliceDepartment to issue city parking tickets indiscriminately to vehicles illegally parked in the fire lanes of the Quadrangles. In its parking lots allover campus, however, the University must stillrely on its own tickets to discourage violators.Until the University sees its way clear to garnishee the salaries of staff and faculty, or otherwise put some teeth into the tickets, they remainan ineffective measure. Much more importantly,the present policy allows students to see themselves as a special class discriminately exploitedby an unresponsive administration. I must oncemore urge that the University bring its enforcement policy into line with the dictates of fairnessand reason.Bruce CarrollADDENDUM: A REVIEW OF COLLEGEFINANCIAL AID AWARDDETERMINATIONI reported last quarter that "College financial aidpolicies are reasonable," and that "guidelines fordetermination of need and resultant aid are generally fair." Conversations with many students andfaculty, however, indicate that the operation ofthe College Financial Aid Office is poorly understood. Ignorance and misconception are the rule,informed opinion the exception. There seems toexist a need for a fairly detailed and comprehensive description of the operation to which students and faculty may refer. I have decided,therefore, on the following addendum, the laborof Associate Ombudsman Jonn Salovaara. Wehope the University community will find it a useful reference. Director of College Aid, Mr. FredR. Brooks, has been our primary source. We appreciate his interest and cooperation. The Officeof the Ombudsman accepts sole responsibility forthe accuracy of this information, as well as for thequestions and reflections here presented.In the format we have chosen, each sectioncontains a question to the College Aid Office (1),followed by the response (2), and then by our ownreflections on the question's topic (3).Part A: The Determination of Student ResourcesI. 1. What does the College Scholarship Service(CSS) do with the information provided in theParents' Confidential Statement (PCS)?2. The CSS determines what portion of the72family's income and assets may be fairly assessedto pay for college expenses. This figure is comprised of "the maintenance allowance" and "discretionary income." Discretionary income is determined by subtracting from overall income thetotal cost of family maintenance, including thecost of food, clothing, housing, and the other expenses deemed reasonable by the CSS. To determine a reasonable provision for family maintenance, the CSS uses tables which it adjusts yearlyto account for increasing prices. Discretionary income is that part of the family's income which isnot required for maintenance and which a familywithout college-age children might normallyspend on nonmaintenance items, such as a secondautomobile or a costly vacation. CSS bases itsdetermination on the income reported for the yearpreceding the aid application, not the incomewhich parents estimate for the year covered byapplication.The "maintenance allowance" is the portion ofthe total family maintenance expense which theparents spend on an individual child.3. The Office of the Ombudsman believes thatthe CSS determination of the parental contribution is fair in principle. There are problems inpractice, some of which are alleviated bymodifications of the CSS analysis made by theOffice of College Aid.II. 1. What does the Aid Office do with theanalysis and determination made by the CSS?2. The Office reviews each CSS analysis and, ifthere has been a change in the parents' financialsituation from the previous year (a change whichwould be evident in the parental income estimatesin the PCS), the Office will adjust the effectiveincome figure which the CSS used to determinediscretionary income. Such an adjustment takesplace, for instance, when parents have becomeunemployed or received raises or pay-cuts. Instead of relying on the actual reported income ofthe previous year (as does the CSS), the Officemay modify that figure in the light of the parents'present financial situation. For cases in whichparents' expected income has decreased from theactual income of the previous year, an adjustmentis not made unless parents give in their statementsspecific reasons for estimating a lower income.This policy exists because the Office has foundthat parents consistently estimate their incomes tobe less than what they actually turn out to be.After adjusting the income figure, the Office usestables provided by the CSS to redetermine thediscretionary income. The Office also introduces modifications intothe CSS apportionment of discretionary incomeamong students in a family. In their calculationthe CSS does not apportion a share of discretionary income to sibling graduate students. TheOffice of College Aid, however, may allow forgraduate students in the family when figuring acandidate's expected parental contribution. Itonly does this, however, if the parents are actually spending money on that graduate student'seducation. It will deduct the amount parents actually spend from the discretionary income beforeapportioning the discretionary income equallyamong college students in the family.The Office may also make adjustments whencollege students in the family are attending non-private (i.e. less expensive) institutions for whichthe portion of discretionary income allotted to thestudent in an equal apportionment exceeds thatstudent's actual expenses. An example will makethis clearer. There are two college students in afamily with a discretionary income of $3,000. Student A attends a private institution where thebudget is $6,000. Student B attends a state schoolwith a budget of $3,000. The Office assumesthat both students will contribute similar savingsand earnings to meet these budgets; say a totalof $1,500 is forthcoming from each student.Normally, the discretionary income would beequally divided so that there would be $1,500of discretionary income for each student. Inaddition, parents would be expected to contribute the maintenance allowance for both students — say $1,000 apiece. Thus the expectedparental contribution would be $2,500 for eachstudent, and each student's total resources wouldbe $4,000. But student B's expenses are only$3,000, leaving an excess of $1,000 in resources.The Aid Office would expect this sum to beshifted to student A, giving him a total of $5,000 inresources and leaving him with a need of $1 ,000 tobe met by the College.Similar adjustments are made if a sibling collegestudent has a budget less than his discretionaryportion because of a large, non-need-based scholarship. Neither the CSS nor the Aid Office allowsprivate secondary school expenses as a deductionfrom discretionary income except in the rare casein which a child in the family, because of somespecial problem, such as a physical handicap, requires a private institution.3. The Ombudsman is concerned that studentsand parents are not kept informed as to the exactextent of adjustments in effective income whichresult from changes in the parents' financial cir-73cumstances. There also seems to be ample opportunity for confusion and miscalculation in the discretionary income modifications involvinggraduate students and state schools. The policy,in theory, seems very sound, however, and if students can somehow make sure that proper adjustments have been made, the policy's implementation should continue to be fair.III. 1. Can students find out what income figurewas actually used by the Office in determiningdiscretionary income? Can they get informationabout the adjustments made in the apportionmentof that sum among siblings?2. Yes, if the Office has received permissionfrom the parents to allow the student to viewconfidential financial information, it will cooperate with students who wish to know exact figuresand to see the process of adjustment. One of thesalient features of this University's undergraduatefinancial aid program is the large number of appeals and inquiries it handles each year.3. The Ombudsman believes that students whoare concerned about any aspect of their aiddeterminations should contact the Aid Office andget a reasonable explanation.IV. 1. If there has been a decrease in parentalincome from the previous year, shouldn't a student bring tax forms to the Office in the middle ofthe year to prove that his parents' lower estimation was in fact correct?2. It is a good idea for parents to send or forstudents to bring such documentation to theOffice. However, the Office of College Aid andthe Ombudsman both stress the importance of reporting favorable as well as unfavorable changesin income. The Office should be informed of increases as well as decreases. In failing to reportsuch increases, the candidate not only jeopardizeshis aid for the following year; he also diminishesthe overall success of the College's financial aidprogram by channeling very scarce resources tohimself and away from students actually in need.3. While some of the Office's policies seem toallow students to see themselves as unfairlytreated (these will be discussed in later questions)and thereby give students a chance forself-justification in cheating, the Office's parentalcontribution policy as described above is clear-cutand sensible. Students should keep the Office correctly informed about all income changes.V. 1. It is the present policy to expect students to report all of their savings and to spend them ontheir college education at the following rate: 1styear — 25 percent, 2nd year — 33 percent, 3rdyear — 50 percent, 4th year — 100 percent. Whydoesn't the Office name a uniform amount as expected student savings for all students? This is thepresent policy as pertains to expected studentearnings.2. The Office set this policy so that it would notdiscriminate against students who were unable tosave substantial amounts prior to College becauseof their socioeconomic backgrounds. The Officeexpects students to be committed to pay for theireducation at a reasonable rate from savings whichthey have available. Acting on this assumption,the Office expects that students will not fail toreport savings actually in their possession.3. Although it responds to a very importantconcern, this policy seems not as well designed asit might be. It is certainly not unfair to ask students to contribute what savings they have, butthis policy allows some students to see themselves as unfairly burdened. For instance, somestudents may spend their savings on stereoequipment, costly vacations, or other expensiveitems which the aid application does not ask themto report. Technically, these students then havesmaller savings to report, and their purchases, ineffect, have been subsidized by the Office of Financial Aid. When students think a policy is unfair, they are less hesitant to lie to the Office. Itmight make more sense for the Office to expect atleast a set minimum of savings from everyone andto allow students who don't have that sum tomake up the deficiency with loans.VI. 1. What exactly are students expected to report as savings and assets?2. Students should report their total assets: thecontents of savings and checking accounts, educational insurance, real estate, and significantpersonal possessions such as cars and stereoequipment (the aid application does notspecifically ask about any personal possessionsbut automobiles). The contents of savings and/orchecking accounts normally include summer aswell as term-time earnings received up to the application deadline. The Office says that it takesthis into account, that it does not count as savingsthat portion of savings which represents summerand term-time earnings. (Savings are increasedonly through non-earnings income such as gifts orinheritances.) Thus, the Office doesn't "tax" thesame money both as savings and as earnings. The74Office also takes into account the amount of savings which will have been spent and will thus beunavailable to defray next year's expenses.3. The Ombudsman believes that the studentshould clearly state on the application what partof his savings are in fact earnings, just to make itabsolutely clear to the Office what his savings are.The student should also be as specific as possiblein explaining why a certain portion of savingsmight not be available as a spendable asset.VII. 1. Why does the Office expect students toreport earnings which exceed the general expected earnings?2. As a prerequisite for receiving federal funding, the Office is required to take all student earnings into account. The Office is able, however, toenforce this policy only in cases involving students who participate in the federal work-studyprogram. Work-study students, when earningsexceed expectations, usually receive a reductionin the loan, not the grant, portion of their aid. Mr.Brooks says that he knows of no cases in whichother forms of aid have been revised downwardbecause of earnings in excess of expectations.Such a revision does not take place because it isimpossible for the Office to get accurate information about student earnings which exceed the predetermined levels. The Office of Financial Aidhas sought general information regarding studentearnings from the University's personnel officebut has not yet made use of this information inspecific cases. In fact, at present, the nonen-forcement of this policy (by which all studentearnings, instead of just the predetermined, expected amount, would be counted as student resources) is integrated into the overall financial aidprogram. Instead of raising the allowance forbooks and miscellaneous expenses, which remainat unrealistic yearly figures of $150 and $450 respectively, the Office assumes that such an increase is at least in part being covered by studentearnings in excess of the expected figure. Students who are unable to earn the expected amountcan make up the deficiency by taking out loans.Loans may also be used to cover substantiatedbook expenses in excess of the present allowance.The expected earnings for 1976-1977, includingboth summer and term-time employment, are: 1styear, $1,000; 2nd year, $1,200; 3rd year, $1,300;4th year, $1,400.3. The earnings policy as described by Mr.Brooks seems to the Ombudsman to be well-designed and fair to students. Part B: The Determination of ExpensesI. 1. Against what kind of budget is a student'sneed assessed?2. (All budget figures in the following responseare for the 1975-1976 academic year. 1976-1977figures will include a $210 tuition increase as wellas any room and board increases which the Housing Office might institute, when applicable. Noneof these figures include University health insurance, which will increase the budget by approximately $100, or the travel allowance, which variesdepending on the location of the student's residence.)Each student's budget is based on his room andboard status as reported in the application. Thereare five budget categories: off-campus, on-campus, fraternity, transfer, and commuter. Thecommuter budget is $4,525. This includes noonlunch, daily transportation, books, and personalexpenses. The fraternity budget is a reasonableaverage based on what fraternities actuallycharge, but that information, according to Mr.Brooks, is not always easy to obtain. The generaloff-campus budget is $5,210. The twenty on-campus (University Housing) budgets range from$5,235 to $5,780 depending on the type of contract. Transfer students' budgets are increased bya $75 orientation fee (as are those of freshmen).II. 1, If the student's need is assessed accordingto one of these budgets, what's the point of havinghim report his actual expenses on the applicationform?2. The expense information contained in theindividual application is not used in assessingneed, but it is used by the Office to make adjustments in their general budget figures. For instance, if the Office found from reviewing applications that students were consistently spendingmore on food or books than presently allowed inthe budget figures quoted in the preceding question, they would consider an adjustment of thosebudgets to reflect this greater outlay of resources.The information which students provide is especially useful in determining the general off-campus budget.3. The Ombudsman stresses the importance ofaccurate budget reporting and itemization of expenses. Students should not attempt to make theirreporting conform to the Office's student budgetexpectations. Although the student's reportingand estimation of expenses as contained in theapplication do not affect short-term changes in75calculating the student's need, they are importantfor long-term adjustments in the Office's expectations.III. 1. Doesn't the policy of assessing aid againsta wide variety of student budgets discourage astudent who receives aid from attempting toeconomize? For instance, if a student "on aid"moves into an apartment in order to live morecheaply, his aid will be cut accordingly. On theother hand, if such a student moves into the mostexpensive single room on campus and takes a fullboard contract, financial aid will be increased tocover the increased costs. Thus, there is noeconomic incentive for students to live as cheaplyas possible on campus.2. The College Aid Office believes that students on financial aid should have the freedom tochoose from among the various life-styles available through the College House System withoutconsidering the expense involved. Mr. Brooksthinks that his Office should be committed to supporting the House System, although he has neverbeen pressured to do so by Messrs. O'Connell orTurkington. Mr. Brooks believes that the dormitory experience can be an important part of College life and that students receiving financial aidshould be encouraged to participate. The presentpolicy allows them to follow their personal preferences in choosing between on-campus and off-campus housing.3. Ideologically, this policy seems reasonable.It is geared to the maintenance of a vigorous campus housing system which must be regarded as anessential part of the College. From theUniversity's point of view, this policy also makessense economically. As Mr. Brooks puts it,money not spent through financial aid to encourage students to stay in the House System wouldotherwise be used to make up the deficit resultingfrom reduced student participation in the system.But this policy does seem to create a problemand to raise questions which possibly meritdeeper consideration by the Aid Office. The problem again involves students' perception of thefairness of the aid determination process. Viewedobjectively, perhaps there should be no problemat all. But this policy encourages off-campus students to be less than objective and to see the policy as discriminatory against them. Their reasoning in this regard might conceivably run as follows: The Office of College Aid will regard aslegitimate an expediture of up to $1,970 for on-campus room and board. But if a student livesoff-campus, the Office will allow only $1,400 for room and board. Some students desiring to liveoff-campus might see this $570 difference as anunfair disadvantage in Aid determination. Mr.Brooks' understandable response to this questionis: Students have a choice of where they want tolive and the Office only tries to assess their needin relation to their actual expenses. The Officebelieves $1,400 to be a more than adequate allowance for room and board (this leads to the question of how the $1,400 figure was determined,which is answered in the next question). Mr.Brooks' response, though perfectly reasonable, isnot always very satisfying to the off-campus student who says, "I don't want to live on campus,but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed tospend as much off-campus as I would living in thehousing system." When such a student feels thusmistreated by the Office, he might be less hesitantto try to make up that $570 by misreporting savings or earnings. The same problem exists foron-campus students who don't want to take boardcontracts (and so, move to Hitchcock, Snell, TheShoreland, etc.) but would like to be able to spendup to $1,000 for board (as do full-board contractstudents) instead of the $600 presently allowed.The Ombudsman is naturally opposed to cheating rationalizations of this type and agrees withMr. Brooks that this is the wrong attitude to taketoward financial aid. At the same time, the Ombudsman can see how some students, especiallythose who do as a matter of fact spend more thanallowed in the off-campus budget, might view thepolicy as unfair.IV. 1. How is the general off-campus budget determined to be $5,210?2. Tuition is $3,210, the book allowance is$150, and the miscellaneous expense budget is$450. These figures are constituents of all studentbudgets. So the question really is — how is the remaining $1,400 arrived at as a reasonable roomand board allowance? This figure is based on theexpenses of off-campus students as reported inAid applications and in interviews Mr. Brookshas had with students. Mr. Brooks believes thatthe figure is realistic and, indeed, generous, sincemany students report spending less than this. Thegeneral figure is used because it is impossible toevaluate the expenditures of each individual off-campus student. The Office will not adjust aid tomeet expenditures which exceed the $1,400figure.3. The Ombudsman's principal concern is withthe feeling of unfairness which may arise out ofthe disparity between the off-campus and on-76campus budgets. Aside from this, the presentbudget policy seems fair, although it is difficult toknow how accurate the $1,400 figure is. The Ombudsman again stresses the importance of accurate expense-reporting on Aid applications. Theapproximate off-campus budget figure used by theCollege Aid Office reflects the actual figures students give them to work with.Part C: The AwardI. 1. How is the award's ratio of loan to grantdetermined?2. First of all, outside sources of aid make upthe award as far as possible. These include statescholarships, social security benefits, honoraryscholarships, etc. For need beyond this aid, theratio of grant to loan must be determined. For astudent's first year in the College, the ratio is determined by the size of the need, the strength ofhis application (i.e., his academic record), andwhat Mr. Brooks calls "the feel of the Committee." There is no set percentage of loan. In highneed cases, the maximum loan is normally recommended. Maximum recommended loans aredetermined with regard to what the Office viewsas a reasonable cumulative debt for the total fourCollege years. Presently this maximum recommended debt is taken as $3,700, broken down asfollows: 1st year— $750; 2nd year— $850; 3rdyear— $1,000; 4th year— $1,100. It should benoted that, although these (usually National Direct Student Loans) are the maximum loans everrecommended by the College Aid Office, relatively few students need to borrow theseamounts. It is possible to borrow much more(through the Federally Insured Student LoanProgram and other sources), and a few studentsdo take out such "convenience" loans, sometimes to replace expected parental contributionsthat for some reason are not forthcoming.An entering student, then, with a calculatedneed of $1,500 or more can expect a recommended loan of $750. If his need is only $500, it islikely that his award will be $300 grant and a $200recommended loan. Again, much depends on thestudent's academic potential as determined by theadmissions committee. Both high- and low-needstudents, if their need remains constant, can expect an approximate recommended loan increaseof $100 and a corresponding decrease in grantfrom year to year as they progress through theCollege. Because the Office, from its own point ofview, never recommends an unreasonable loan togrant ratio, it will not consider appeals of loan versus grant determinations.3. Because so much seems to depend on "thefeel of the Committee," it is a little difficult for theOmbudsman to evaluate the policy on loan togrant ratio determinations. But since many students for whom loans are recommended do nottake them, it might be possible to conclude thatthe ratios are generally quite fair, even generous.The maximum recommended loan policy is certainly very fair.II. 1. In the Aid Office's renewal applicationguidelines, it is stated that a student's academicrecord should be a factor in deciding whether ornot he merits the consideration of the Committeeon College Aid. It is also stated that the amountand form of a student's upperclass award is affected by the student's personal and academicrecord. Furthermore, the adviser's recommendation, which must be based on the adviser's knowledge of the student's academic status, is a required part of the Aid application. Just what is therole of the academic record in determining need-based financial aid?2. The academic record is used primarily in determining the ratio of grant to loan in a student'saward. It in no way affects the determination ofneed. A student with a superior academic record,however, is more likely to have a greater part ofhis award in the form of grant. The Office seesthis policy as part incentive and part reward. Astudent's personal record also becomes importantat the opposite extreme. A student on academicprobation, or one who seems to be neglecting hisown potential, may have the grant portion of hisaward shifted to loan or may have his applicationfor aid put on a quarterly review basis. Academicrecords are also important in the Stagg, Dudley,Argonne, and other scholarships for whichacademic performance is at least one of thecriteria.3. The Ombudsman is concerned that there isnot a more developed system of scholarship reward for academic excellence. Former programssuch as the University Scholar award have beenphased out of the financial aid spectrum. Manyfaculty members, too, seem concerned that thefinancial aid system has gradually shifted its efforts to the almost exclusive goal of meeting student need. This concern was expressed, for example, by Professor N. C. Yang in his appendixto the admissions policy report of May 1975. Inaddition to the regular awards based primarily ondemonstrated need, there should be, the Ombudsman feels, at least a few awards based solely77on academic achievement. While the Aid Officeholds that academic-based awards have in thepast proven ineffective as a means of attractingexceptional scholastic talent, it neverthelessseems highly contradictory for this University tohave non-need-based awards for students withathletic talent but not for those who have demonstrated superior academic prowess.III. 1. Why is the notification of awards delayeduntil mid- July? This puts some students in anawkward position if they believe their aid decisions are unfavorable.2. According to Mr. Brooks, the July date isthe earliest possible, given the present staff sizeand the amount of work involved. The Office isconstantly working on appeals and on freshmanclass awards. The process is not yet computerized. Furthermore, Mr. Brooks sees no realpoint in getting award decisions mailed to stu-A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1973-74 DOCTORATESTo: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsMay 15, 1975This is the fourth year of our continuing study ofthe employment patterns of University ofChicago PhDs. The data in this report, as in previous reports, are those provided by the departments and schools in response to a questionnairewhich lists the names of all individuals awardedthe PhD as indicated in Convocation programs ineach of the four quarters of the particularacademic year surveyed: in this case, Autumnthrough Summer, 1973-74.Again we note that no substantial number ofdoctoral graduates were unemployed in 1974 despite the continuing despair in the media and fromthe professional associations concerning the labormarket for PhDs. The unemployment rate forUniversity of Chicago Divisional PhDs was 5.4percent, an increase of .8 percent over 1973. Thisrate is higher than the rate of 5.1 percent thatresults when the Divisions are combined withdoctorates awarded through the Professional dents at an earlier date. As he points out, anotification coming at any time after the application deadline is too late to allow students to transfer to another school (most of which close theirtransfer application acceptance in the earlyspring). In any case, says Mr. Brooks, it is unlikely that a student will find a better financial aidsituation elsewhere anyway. Mr. Brooks stressesthat the Office does consider appeals and that thecase of a student who really thinks he is unable toreturn to the University for financial reasons willbe reviewed carefully. For students who are actively considering transfer, it is possible to get anestimated award from the Office before the end ofspring quarter. Mr. Brooks expects to meet hisJuly 15 target date this summer unless unforeseenproblems arise concerning the status of federal orstate scholarship programs.Bruce CarrollSchools, and it continues to be among the lowestin the United States for any university.Of the four Divisons, the hardest hit from thestandpoint of unemployment and underemployment is the Humanities. This Division has a 12percent rate of unemployment. Even among thoseemployed, 9 percent are in either part-time ortemporary positions at colleges and universities.The patterns of occupations of Chicago PhDsfollow a path that has become familiar to us. Inview of the national shortages in college and university teaching and/or research positions, however, it is particularly striking to note that ourDepartments and Schools report that 65 percentof the 1974 doctorates are employed in such positions. This is an increase of 5 percent over 1973and equal to that reported in 1971. The four-yearcomparison by occupation is given in Table I .The majority of our graduates continue to findtheir employment in the nation's major universities, institutions belonging to either the Association of Graduate Schools or the Council ofGraduate Schools. The shifts in the last four yearsamong the various types of institutions seemprimarily to reflect the realistic economic conditions found in American higher education and theshifts in the nation's college-student population.(See Table II.)78In compiling these data, special note was takenof the comments that accompanied the individualdepartments' reports. There were only a fewcomments concerning the temporary nature of thepositions listed. Either this was not a consideration because of the relief felt when a student obtained any teaching/research position at all, or itwas no longer considered a serious problem. Forexample, it is noted that post-doctoral fellowships, an area of great departmental concern because of their temporary nature, account for only11 percent of the Divisional graduates in 1974.This is a decline from 13.6 percent in 1973, 17 percent in 1972, and 20 percent in 1971. The decline undoubtedly represents the decrease in thefunding for such fellowships, but it also mayreflect the general reluctance of students to acceptso obviously temporary an appointment, particularly if a regular teaching/research position wereavailable as an alternative.Special note was also taken this year of the nature of the nonacademic positions reported forour graduates. While no PhD was reported to be"driving a cab," the widely used euphemism for"underemployed," a few PhDs do seem to occupy less appropriate positions than might be ex-TABLE I: EMPLOYMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PhDsFour Year Comparison by Occupation1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74College & University Teachingand/or Research 65% 63% 60% 65%College & University Administration 1% 2% Bel 2% 0School Teaching & Administration Bel 1% Bel 1% 1% 1%Business & Industry 2% 1% 5% 4%Government 3% 5% 4% 6%Non-Profit Organizations 5% 8% 6% 3%TABLE II: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PhDs EMPLOYED IN COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITYTEACHING AND/OR RESEARCHFour Year Comparison by InstitutionType of Employing Institution 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973-74The University of Chicago 5% 5% 7% 4%AGS1 36% 27% 25% 30%CGS2 26% 32% 32% 26%CAGS3 4% 4% 2% 4%State College 4% 7% 10% 10%Private College 21% 15% 21% 19%Community or Junior College 1% 3% 1% 2%Foreign University 4% 6% 2% 5%1. AGS: Association of Graduate Schools2. CGS: Council of Graduate Schools3. CAGS: Canadian Association of Graduate Schools79(0QO(5<OXoLLo>-(0CCm>zDZLU2>-o«JQ.sLUUJ-JCQ< « ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ o « ^t f^ «n O ^-h O CN IO N ^ r^H ON rt t-h* tJ-" vd ro' O ro" O* •/¦" i—*73Uo ^_y v^^ ^^ ? s^^/ S_ ? ^-^ ^-^ s>^' s~x/«— \ /— "S /— N6 VD ^- N <0 h IO h Tt O ^D VO ^t CN »-« tJ- -^ o r-ro Tf Os w <N w ro »o ^H CN -H ^h CN^ ro S— ? CN< ^ ^»0 ro</3 r^ CNc/3\D CN ^t o m ^"^ o oiS b ^o cd Oo i-l o¦C £u ^^c« J cn © cn o CN o o"3.©*C#3CM ^ ^ £«m oo ro ro roO ONMfa >'3 O ^ ONro (N o (N oC/3C/3<D ^ ^^C VO ro *-*»o ro ^3 ^-^DQ ON O ON o »o ro '-h O ois ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ l?^ ^— , vo ro r^ r- ro *-< cn O CN Tf ocd © CN ^- ro* vd ro O ^ o ;n CN*OH ^OON ~* 00 *n f- *n r- r- \D ro CN »-« ^ Tt ^ ON r-00 Tl" Ti w CN w ro »-^ ^- (N -Hro ro ^^ CN^.^ ^^ /— S /-*s /— S /«— S g ^ / s'o $ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^c/5 CN ON ro *-< VO VO CNr»CD6o ^ CN ON ro ro »o ^f CN O ON £ ^ CNC/3 00 (N >0 s"— ' CN i— « ^-^C/} ,_H ^e.© ""3 ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^C/3 00 ^~ vO ro r- CN"S ro CN ^-^>>>• /— N /«— V /— S5 -C On t <n CN vo CO i-h ro on r- tT ^H(X vo «— ¦ v~> W O W ^e is ^ i? ^ ^ i> i'^ ^CN -^ Tf CN ^ -h CN «03X r- s_^ s^/ s_^ ^_^ v_^^-^r- rf ro O ON <N ^ ro CN *-> ^ O tT00 oo «0 ^'o $ ^ §^ ^ ^c/3 CN ONro CN ^t »0 rfCN ^^o s«^?— v /«— s /— Ss (N *-H ^H ro oo cn ro O ^h CN ro CN o«0 «/"> CNC/3 uC/3 <U o coo oc/> cd \3 c« w >»C C/3> -acd .2 .2 -~ .2 C/3S-H<D C/3CD cd 3"8 g-s1 «•§cd L-, Oa * b -»* < a .2s a £ a fa <~ £ .ts¦a ° -2 >* c/3 co .ti • H2 > o> <d cd© J? £? C> o "S. p© <*$S O Ccd.s a-C cdO CDcd C/3D <D '2DCDJD •2 c o ccd -fi cd -rt w <u^ Q in g ^ >>2 S .2 ^ w £ -2c H c c^ S o &•a "a «s c % fiS -g S g S Pu, jgC75 DQ 0 Z # tS T3O CD,ST3 C O•g W ^ aft u « fi'8 3 | o cccq a- ^ a- SDOfch o u u Zfc^z ppected: one in English, one in Philosophy, andthree in History. They account for 1.3 percent ofthe study population. It should perhaps bepointed out, however, that in some instances so-called underemployment occurs because of self-imposed geographical limitations, and, in at leastone case, because the individual refused teachingoffers that she felt were not worthy of her training.We cannot rejoice in these data as indicative of"good times," of course, when any one of our PhDs is unemployed or underemployed. It is onlyproper that we recognize, however, that theoverall University of Chicago placement recordfor its 1973-74 PhDs is good in a period of severeeconomic hardship for other sectors of thiscountry's labor market.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsDirector, Career Counseling and PlacementTABLE MIA: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENTS— DIVISION OFTHE BIOLOGICAL SCIENCESPharmacological&PhysiologicalSci.PathologyMicrobiologyComm.Evol.BiologyBiopsychologyBiophysics&Theo.BiologyBiologyBiochemistryAnatomy TotalBase DataPhDs awardedForeign (Temp. Visa)PhDs in Job Market 889932373001000000888932373 M F T41 10 52151Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 1 1 12 13 1 11 1 (3)(5)(2)10 (3)3 (3)(8)(2)13OccupationCollege & UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege & UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitSelf-employed 5 13 5 12 2 111 1 1312 7 2012Not WorkingFurther Education*Not SeekingNot employed 13 1 6 21 1 132 132Unknown 0* Medical School, internship, or residency.81COLUZ<LUXoCO>QICOLUsGC<a.LUo>muiS>o-jQ.2UJmLUflQ< Id H 1*- ^ CO00 00 Ov (N ^ ^ fN ^wo *•« © ^fOU Tf CN ~* © ^ ^-h ^ CN CN§ ONuo wo © © ro — < © © 00 CNSouth Asian ~ © ~ -Slavic L & L ^ © T-N -Romance L & L o © © 00 *-* *-«Philosophy 00 © oo \Q r-H -Near Eastern L & C UO *-« Tf CN ^ -Music CO © CO coLinguistics CO © CO COIdeas & Methods >o -< t TtHistory of Culture CN © CN - COGermanic L & L ^O © \D Tt -H -Far Eastern L & C CN © CN ~ _English L & L 00 © 00CN CN 2 - -- *-« r- CNCom. on Concept.Foun. of Science CN © CN CNComp. St. in Lit. CN © CN CNClassical L & L rf ^ co CN -Art *o *-< "3" ^tBaseData PhDsawarded Foreign(Temp.Visa)PhDsinJobMarketOccupation College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Non-Profit SelfEmployedNotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed coec c .2^ "co .s"a ~6 130) _oaaoa6<uuo o o.11T3 .5(0 — ¦E ad aTABLE IIIC: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT— DIVISIONOF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESStatisticsPhysicsMathematicsGeophysicalSciencesChemistryAstronomy&Astrophysics TotalM F TBase DataPhDs AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)PhDs in Job Market 1 24 10 14 18 20 4 0 3 7 01 20 10 11 11 2 51 4 691455Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 28 2 62 1 (2)(15)(3)20 0(D01 (2)(16)(3)21OccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-Profit 1 1 10 15 2 111 4 11 1287 110 1397Not WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot employed 3 1 3 1 4Unknown 1 1 0 183TABLE MID: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT— DIVISIONOF THE SOCIAL SCIENCESSociologyCommitteeonSocialThoughtPsychologyPoliticalScienceHumanDevelopmentHistory1GeographyEducationEconomicsAnthropology TotalM F TBase DataPhDs AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)PhDs in Job Market 20 24 34 2 37 5 30 8 3 18110 20 31 300219 14 32 2 34 4 27 8 3 16 109 50 18122159Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 1 1 1 33 00 33OccupationCollege and UniversityTeaching and/orResearchCollege and UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitSelf Employed 17 10 26 2 23 2 24 4 3 141 1 l4 11 12 11 2 1 1 22 2 32 1 1 832196 422113 12542109Not WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot Employed l32 1 13 00 13Unknown 1 1 1 1 21. It was thought wiser to keep History intact as a department in the Social Sciences and thus five Humanitiesgraduates are included. One is underemployed, one is seeking employment — both are male. Three are in College andUniversity Teaching.2. Underemployed: two male, one female.3. Law School.4. Female — part-time, probable geographical limitation.84zUJs>q!2IEorr< -=Hi iLyj wrr w9>Z CD< 0)<2Sf §ESCO u.oc oSt38Q UJz>< zUJ 3° ?UJ 1^ofeo *-¦ - u.> oUJCD< / s^_N^^/-^^_^/ s , N / v v^^^^^^^^ ^a ^rO^TtOON(N»o oCN o© ONONt^r-ovoON^tcNr- ^o -h cn Tf -* in<CO ^r -< cn o o o o o roonCfl •JD"© "nJo -d <N o ^ o ^ o o o CNCO 2"3 0c#© -CCm© oco ON OrOV£>CNrOCN'-*0 l>-> CN ,—l <NPh 5(73o#c ON ©roO^OO©^ in"coDQQsSror^ro©r-^-<»A> ^_^— $a 00 oo ^h ro CN w ^ *-< w w oroH 00— oo h N h r^ -hr- m cn ro *—CN'o00 ON (NOMVOh^N^ inio CN ^ ^ (N CN6 ?— • t— •o00cnCmo 'o'35 CO5 in ©u^U^O^-<©©CN roin ~Ohe ro ^¦•nO'-'Ttm^^'^ ON3 oo Cs| ^H ,— . •ODC"5COT-H CN(N<--<©©ro©cN od m '— ' CNSGOIS 00 >>^ JH "cnd u<L> O (DH u #>oo o fe03 r. oo .2 . '3M S ^>w r ^»— T cn O g <D C £»g g g o =§ £ -g«w "*3 \P 5 <L> . O > T3e<D° 5 5 +3 &*> co >, "S•2 ^ 2 ^ ^O ^ '^ 00'o.5 <D OSZ o rt > co co O <y S c o¦s a o < g •£ § o oOh U D<UU55dhUUh H oosiOaUcoa<^ cdaoUCOauoooCOaOcoCOa<<85A STUDY OF EMPLOYMENT OF1974-75 DOCTORATESTo: Charles D. O'ConnellVice-President and Dean of StudentsApril 19, 1976For the fifth consecutive year we have collectedinformation from the individual departments andprofessional schools regarding the employment ofPhDs. We received data from each of the departments and schools, and where necessary, thesewere checked in the Office of Career Counselingand Placement and supplemented by additionaldata. For example, letters were sent to thosePhDs for whom no departmental information wasavailable. Of the eighteen whose status was originally reported as unknown, we received newsfrom 14. As a result, the status of only four, or 1.0percent of the PhDs in the study, remains unknown.The study covers the four quarters, Autumn1974 through Summer 1975. Four hundred andforty-four PhD degrees were awarded in thisperiod. This study, however, has been concernedonly with U.S. citizens and permanent residents;60 people who held temporary U.S. visas weredeleted. As a result, the study deals with a totalpopulation of 384: 298 men and 86 women.The results are presented in the following tables.Table I shows the overall data for the Divisionsand for those Professional Schools that award thePhD. Of the 384 students awarded degrees, 227(59.1 percent) are in College or University teaching and/or research. When eight in College orUniversity administration and two in schoolteaching and/or administration are added to theabove, we have 237 PhDs (61.6 percent) engagedin the educational enterprise.As part of this study, we also look at the natureof the institutions at which our PhDs teach andperform research. Table III indicates that over 57percent are employed in institutions that aremembers of the Association of Graduate Schools(AGS), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS),or the Canadian Association of Graduate Schools(CAGS), which include the most highly respecteduniversities in this country and in Canada.An additional 39 PhDs (10.2 percent) are onpost-doctoral fellowships.To complete the employment statistics, we find10 PhDs (2.6 percent) engaged in business andindustry; 22 (5.7 percent) in government; 24 (6.3percent) in nonprofit organizations; and 2 (0.5 percent) who are self-employed. Known employment, then, totals 334 (87.0 percent), using thebase population of 384 PhDs.1Twenty-one PhDs (5.5 percent) are furtheringtheir education. Twenty of these are from theBiological Sciences Division and all are involvedin medical study, internships, or residencies. Onewoman from the Division of the Humanities hassince entered Law School. Five women areknown to be "not seeking" employment. Severalof these "not seeking" women reported the birthof a child shortly after they were awarded theirdegrees.Twenty PhDs (5.2 percent) are definitelyknown to be unemployed and actively seekingpositions. Of this 20, eleven are men and nine arewomen. The nine women represent 4.7 percent ofthe female population, whereas the eleven menrepresent 3.6 percent of the male population.Proportionately, then, our women show a somewhat higher rate of unemployment than do themen. In speaking of unemployment, it should benoted that 50 percent of the unemployed wereawarded their degrees in Summer 1975, and thatthe other 50 percent were spread through the earlier three quarters. One could conjecture that theproportionately greater number of unemployedfrom among the summer quarter graduates is related to the fact that academic vacancies tend tobe filled during the earlier quarters, and that employers are now demanding "degree in hand" before making a commitment. A second conjectureinvolves the fact that more women than mengraduates whose degrees were awarded in thesummer are unemployed, leading us to recognizethat women tend more than men to limit their jobsearch geographically and have fewer job opportunities available to them in spite of the fact thatrecruitment of women seems to be at an all-timehigh.Tables II A-E show the data for the individualDepartments, Divisions, and ProfessionalSchools. While the Divisions of Biological Sciences, Physical Sciences, and Social Sciencesshow rates of unemployment ranging from 5.0percent to 5.6 percent, the Humanities shows thehighest rate of 7.8 percent. This, however, is astriking decrease from the 12.0 percent reportedfor the Humanities in 1973-74 (Table IV).It has been suggested to us that the study would1. Were we to subtract from the base figure of 384 thosePhDs furthering their education and those not seeking positions,since they were not in the labor market, we arrive at the percentage of 93.3 percent employed (using a base of 358 in the labormarket). The unemployed rate would then become 5.7 percent.860)aoo<oXoUlo>-I-55<rUJ>z10ZUJS>-oUJuioo< CN ^ q »o vo t^- ro »n 10 ro CN q^ OO O ONin CN 0 cn in vd O ^ '^~l *n *-*«oH d Tt O Tt ON r- 00 CN O <N Tf CN ^^ *o O ^t-Z Tj" ^0 00 ro CN ^ C-l <N CN CNno Tf ro (Ncf3 /-^ /*-\ ^^u Ph Tf 00 vo m Tt h x ON 0 O tJ- ro >o O '— < »o ON CNo ! ON 00 W "W v^ Tf, s ,^ ^^O CN 00 h OO \£) ^ OO 00 CN VO ON ON CN O 0 1— H CNs »n in on r^ CNrO CN W< tin 0 0 0 0 0 O OOO O O 0 O OCOCO s vo 0 VO m 0 O O O ~ O O 0 O Ocn"©o u Ph 0 ^ 0 O OO-^ O O 0 O OX! X)c/313c J s CN 1—1 1— 1 T"~l O OOO O O 0 O O.0 X2*c«c«© OCO Ph *- 0 ^ 3 ° — 0 O OOO O O 0 O O> § 00 0 00 ^ T— 1 in 0 O O O CN O O 0 O Ot- CN CN CN|ft< 5C/5 Ph O 0 0 O 0 O OOO O O 0 O O30Q £ O \D Tj" ^t 0 O OOO O O 0 O O^ O q v£> ON Tl- 00 VD „ in OO **1^ OO ^ vd CN O CN vd UO O vd ,-~l in 1"~'d VO ro ro O ^ t^ OO (N r^ <N —5 CN O2 <N CN CN •o O xhZ ON in Ti — CN w ro ON CN CN"c3 ro ro s-'' w *—0Uh CN 00 ^f ro ^ ^ 00 00 0 O rf ro ^3- O _ in ON CNON 00 ^1-§ T in on P r^ 3s © Tf r< CN \o ON VO CN O O 1—1 CNO ^t in s— ^ 1-^ v«— ' ro Tt- T— 1 w* CN 1—*ro CN s"^ ,"—l?-^ /— s ^-s'0 Ph O ro r- O^ CN O CN c^ 0 O ^— ' ro ^J- O O ro I/-1 ^-s CNC/3 co *n t!- (N ^e 0 / ^^ ^^ ro^© 0 2 ro O ro cn cn 1— " in ro ^i- CN CN (N ON O O O ^t v^ CN*s CO ^f CN CN v-*' ^^ ^ — ' 00 1—*> '-"' '""'Q ^ ?""S ^"V"5 Uh ON in *? O »— — CN y—i 0 O ^OO O O O 0 ^ OCO W ^^ s-^ ^>* / s ^^ ^^ vOx: S in ro CN rf in cn ^ ON 0 O ro in CN O O O CN ir^ OOu in CN ro ,"-1 ^^Ph ro O ro VO 0 O ^ © O O CN ro ^ OS fN CN ^3 00X s vO <N Tf CN ro O ^ O ro CN O O ro r-I O»n in Tf ^^ y^^^ ^.^Ph O O O ro <— « O ^t Tf O O ^OO O O O O0CO 0S s O O O *-« O ro "3- O O O O CN CN O O O CN i^ O»n »n w ^ w ^ CNszacdC/3 <D U22 0> -a. ^l-H Oc .£.9 «»£ QO X! 0 c00 05« Cd w C«^ .a =5 g C/32 fe V3 C/33 C0 S .ti 0 S -P D C 00 C T3 #of T3cd5 <^ c/38 Q9t SZ ostdoctoralFellniversityofCtherU.S.InstoreignInstitutotal ccupation ollege&Univ Teachingand; > O00 c c .21 1H .So| usinessandInrovernment fon-Profit OBW«+H .S T3O v-© 3 0012<DCOO T30sPhO ©ecc a Oh Ph Oh fc^O^h O O U CO OQUZ CO Z Ph Z z DIdOH H OOO^o so ^r ^ rn oo rt O O »— CN CN O O O roCN oPh5 5010005010(D(3)(10)(1)(3)(0)144 xt" o o ^ o o oO O O O CN CN O o o ~O O CNCN ooPharmacological &Physiological Sci. Ph«n o *o OOOOOO ^ o o o o o o~ o o o o o o OOO^- o o ooPathology PU OOOvo o vo OOOOOO o o o o o o oo o o o *-* o o OOOin o o ooOphthalmology Phs OOOCN O CN OOOOOO o o o o o o oCN O O O O O O OOOOOO ooMicrobiology5 r-H O ^ro O ro -H O OO CN O o o o o o o oo o o o o *-< o OOOOOO ooGenetics Phs -H O -H^ o ^ ~ o oO -h O o o o o o o oo o o o o o o OOOOOO ooEvolutionaryBiology PUs OOOCN O CN OOOo o ~ o o o o o o oo o o o ~ o o OOOOOO ooDevelopmentalBiology Phs OOOCN O CN OOOO ^ o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o OOO^ © © ooBiophysics &Theo. Biology Phs -H O ^^H O ~* OOOO Tf CN ~ o o o o o oCN O O O O ^ O OOOCN O O ooBiology Phs ^t o ^rr^ o r- ^H ^H O^H ^H © »-< o o o o o oCN O OOOOO o o ^^h O CN ooBiochemistry Ph ^H O —^r» o r- OOOOOO o O O ~h o o oCN O OOOOO OOOin o o ooAnatomys ^H O -H^ O Tf OOOo -< o ~h O OOOOO^h o OOOOO OOOCN O O ooBaseData PhDsAwarded Foreign(Temp.Visa)PhDsinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation College&University Teachingand/orResearch College&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Non-Profit SelfEmployedNotWorking FurtherEducation1NotSeekingNotEmployed ©cc o•B*C/3EUJ<SXLUOzg>QIZtu<Q.UJQ>mZUJ2>-oUJ2UI-ICD< o H on cn r- 00 ro O CN O ro CNin ^ N \0 o5623205423 v© o o *- o o o^ ^ © *-< O ro CN *-« CN roO O ro ooSlavic L & L Ph5 OOOro O ro O O OOOOOCN *-< OOOOO OOOOOO ooRomance L & L *-* © ^ro O ro *-« © © o o o oro © OOOOO OOOOOO ooPhilosophy Ph ^o © ^oO ^ ON ro O O ^ O O Ov£> © © © O O CN O O CNo o ~ ooNear Eastern L & C Ph2 _< © _Hh ^ ^O *-* O OOOOO«/~> © O O O ^— ' o OOOOOO ooMusic ^ © ,-,OOO ~* O OOOOO© © OOOOO OOOOOO ooLinguistics PnS ^ © ^r- o r- O O OOOOOin O OOOOO o — oO O CN ooHistory of Culture Ph2 OOOCN O CN © © © © © © ©-* o o »-« o o o OOOOOO ooGermanic L & L tu5 Tf O Tiro O ro ro O OOOOOro O OOOOO o — oOOO ooFar Eastern L & C Ph2 CN O CN~ © ^ ~ O OOOOO~ O OOOOO © © ^OOO ooEnglish L & L P*s Tf © rfro O ro ro O OOOOOO CN © O O ~ O ~ o oOOO ooComp. St. in Lit. Pms ^ © ^CN O CN -* O OOOOOCN O OOOOO OOOOOO ooClassical L & L Phs OOOro O ro O O OOOOOCN O O O O ~ O OOOOOO ooArt Phs CN O CNCN O CN CN O OOOOOCN O OOOOO OOOOOO ooBaseData PhDsAwarded Foreign(Temp.Visa)PhDsinJobMarketOccupation College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Non-Profit SelfEmployedNotWorking FurtherEducation1NotSeekingNotEmployed B§J*ssDTABLE IIC: EMPLOYMENT BY DEPARTMENT— DIVISIONOF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCESAstronomy&Astrophysics ocd3¦1 cf O2. cdCD oCD y<<o' 2pDTCD3po'C/3 10^<C/3o'c/3 C/3*o'C/3 TotalBase DataPhDs AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)PhDs in Job Market M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T1 00 01 0 21 69 412 2 2 01 01 0 6 13 03 1 23 29 114 0 2 01 01 0 55 923 532 4 642836Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 0 00 00 0 1 03 01 1 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 3 02 11 0 0 00 00 0 (4) (0)(5) (D(2) (1)11 2 (4)(6)(3)13OccupationCollege & UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege & UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitSelf Employed 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 1 00 00 02 11 02 00 0 1 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 2 10 00 0l1 00 00 00 0 4 00 00 00 03 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 01 00 00 0 9 10 00 03 15 02 00 0 10004520Not WorkingFurther EducationNot SeekingNot Employed 0 00 00 0 0 00 01 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 01 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 02 0 002Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01. Underemployed.90COUJozUJoCO-J<ooCOUJu.ozoCO>QzUJsoc<Q.UJa>-CDUJS>¦o-Ia.2UJoUJ-iCD< cdoH H m m OOn CN r-* S 2 3 ^ O ^t CN ro uo ro O © ro ON ti-1435020312347 O <N O CNCN CN ^ UO r- o o ~ m ^f oCN^ ^t CN fN CN ON O00 y-* © ro uo© © ^f CNCNSociology s ON O ONm rf on OOOOOO r- o o *-* ~ o ot^- o o o ^ ^ o © © ©© © © ©©Psychology oo ^ r^O »-h ON OOO^ T-H O ro o o O ^h o o^t O O O O m o © © ro© © © ©©PoliticalScience S momm CN -r-H OOOOOO ro O OOOOO^O O O — CN ~h O © © ©© © © ©HumanDevelopment 5 r- o r-»in o in OOOOOO ^t- o o o o cn oCN O O O — CN O © »-« ©© © © ©©History5 ^O O VO^ O Tfm ro OOOo — o wo O OOOOO"*fr ^ © ~ ^f © ©CN © © ©© © m ©Geography S OOOON ^H 00 OOOOOO © © © © © © ©r- © © © © © © © © ©© © ~ ©©Education5 2513012512 o ~ oO O ~H ^fr O © © © CN ©^f ro CN © CN CN © © CN CN© © © ~Economics Uh5 CN ~H ^H— < CN ONCN ~h OOOOOO © © © © ~ © ©r- © © © cn © © © © ©© © © ©©Anthropology 5 CN O CNro o m O -h O— o o *-« o © © © © ©CN © © © © © © © © ©© © O ©OBaseData PhDsAwarded Foreign(Temp.Visa)PhDsinJobMarketPostdoctoralFellowsUniversityofChicagoOtherU.S.InstitutionsForeignInstitutionsTotal Occupation College&University Teachingand/orResearchCollege&University Administration SchoolTeachingand/orAdministration BusinessandIndustryGovernment Non-Profit SelfEmployedNotWorking FurtherEducationNotSeekingNotEmployed c©cc &'e "^'ss >>•§. sbo <DO "O<D C0 D— <NTABLE HE: EMPLOYMENT BY PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLSSP DOS- c2- gC/3C/3 cf 53* <o 2. GraduateLibrarySchool > C/3Is.3 ~ss' a?<-* CD'"1 |-t& <o' £'3 rt TotalBase DataPhDs AwardedForeign (Temp. Visa)PhDs in Job Market M F M F M F M F M F T10 06 04 0 28 10 028 1 2 11 01 1 6 00 06 0 46 27 039 2 48741Postdoctoral FellowsUniversity of ChicagoOther U.S. InstitutionsForeign InstitutionsTotal 0 00 00 0 0 0(D (0)0 0 0 00 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0(D (0)0 01 0 0(D01OccupationCollege & UniversityTeaching and/or ResearchCollege & UniversityAdministrationSchool Teaching and/orAdministrationBusiness and IndustryGovernmentNon-ProfitSelf Employed 4 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 25 10 00 00 00 02 00 0 0 0l1 00 00 00 00 l20 0 5 00 00 00 00 01 00 0 34 11 00 00 00 03 10 0 351000401. Academic Library.2. A Library Association.92©ZwS>-SzsisiUJlLIII"CCLLlOhQ>ZCQ<a>ifgo<<£tsSo-Stil!><ZUl=>OjpOo)--IL.= oUJ-JCD< <cocoeo X)0szoCO3OQOoCOoCOCOs3COo£ roTiroooSO SO OO ^l^ CO O o oin 00 Ow co ro r^ 3, oCN in r-SO Tf so OCO CNin so ONCN^ ^h ^-h o O CNo o o o o o© CN SO © CN SO^_ 0 ^ ^H O *-«^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^CN ro ^t VO t^ roin cn o* cn ^t r^^ ro CN w -^ ^-«O CN ON wo 00 ro~- SO ro CN ro— Tt ~ © -* ~ CNOro OO SO ro r-> rororOTt»-'CN'-^ OO OOCNONONO oos:oCOOOcoCOO<CO0>OooOco"OOCOooXoC/3 -^ o.s £ o .s SOh OH O'szU c/3 C/3c c-s -B I3 *2.ti C/3C/3 c/3 ±2C C ~~ — < COco co Ooo<< <J U > <u S^ D cD S 3o U fe<D • °00 CO >.2 *c o w oCO Oh U Uh<L>'S 3OX)o ¦*o3^ COoX)<93be enriched if we could distinguish between "old"and "new" jobs held by the new PhDs. By "old"we mean positions already held prior to theawarding of the degree; by "new" we mean positions obtained in the year that the degree wasawarded. For 1974-75 an attempt was made tocollect these data. Where information was available, the following are the results:NewBiological Sciences 80%Humanities 51.7%Physical Sciences 95%Social Sciences 52.1%It should be stated that the phenomenon of "old"positions has not resulted because of a depressedmarket for PhDs. As a PhD watcher for at leastthe last fifteen years, I have long been aware thatmany of our non-science PhDs obtain their permanent employment after achieving PhD candidacy. Particularly in the Humanities and the Social Sciences, candidacy often precedes theawarding of the degree by some years. The abovedata bear out this impression. It should also benoted that changes (promotions and tenure) oftenoccur on "old" positions as a result of the awarding of the degree; unfortunately, our data are notadequate to confirm this as a fact.The issue of "temporary" versus "permanent"positions is also one that is frequently raised when PhD employment is considered. It is historicallytrue, regardless of the market, that many of ourPhDs have taken one-year positions or postdoctoral appointments because the experience,training, or exposure to a particular institutionwas deemed helpful toward future success. Theissue today, of course, is (1) that our students maynot have viable choices other than a temporarysituation, or (2) that the institution is not deemedworthy of a one-year "sacrifice." We may nowhave the situation, therefore, in which a PhD willchoose to be underemployed but geographicallycomfortable rather than accept a one-year appointment in an incompatible area of the country.Again, Table IV reminds us that this is no timefor rejoicing. Although two of the Divisions(Humanities and Physical Sciences) show improvement in their unemployment statistics overthe previous year, the increases in unemploymentin the Biological Sciences and the Social Sciencesincrease the overall unemployment statistic bythree-tenths of a percentage point over last year.This is not a particularly significant increase, butit serves to underscore the fact that the PhD labormarket for the Divisions for initial placement remains difficult.Anita SandkeAssistant Dean of StudentsDirector, Career Counseling and PlacementTABLE IV: UNEMPLOYMENT 1971-1975 BY GRADUATE DIVISIONSDivision 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73 1973^74 1974-75Biological SciencesHumanitiesPhysical SciencesSocial Sciences 01 (1.5%)1 (1.2%)1 (0.6%) 2 (4.9%)1 (1.4%)1 (1.5%)4 (2.0%) 08 (10.5%)3 (4.0%)6 (3.3%) 2 (3.9%)10 (12.0%)4 (7.3%)3 (1.9%) 3 (5.0%)6 (7.8%)2 (5.6%)9 (5.3%)Total 3 (0.9%) 8 (2.0%) 17 (4.6%) 19 (5.5%) 20 (5.8%)Degrees Awarded1 350 347 373 348 3431. U.S. citizens and permanent residents.94MEMORIAL TRIBUTESGLEN A. LLOYD, 1895—1975By EDWARD H. LEVITo know Glen was to love him and many wereprivileged to know him. He had a capacity forfriendship — a true friendship with staying powerwhich overcame disagreements. Glen likedpeople — people of all sorts. He was interested inthem and in drawing them out. He liked workingwith them. And all of us were drawn to him. Wetrusted him. He was our mentor. He planned forus, but really for us and not for himself. He hadthe power of a purposeful complex nature withmany abilities — the ability to uncover the far offobjective; the ability to put together the intermediate steps; the willingness and tremendousdrive to discipline himself, to take care of all ofthe details with extraordinary thoroughness. Themethodical was joined with ingenuity and rareimagination, a persistent inquiry into ideas, anabiding commitment to ideals with a courage to actact upon them. So repeatedly he made it possibleto translate ideals into action. But the heart of themagic — and it was magic — was a talent to reachout and establish a relationship of appreciationand trust — a relationship in which laughter, achuckle, the twinkle in the eye, the enjoyment ofall kinds of interests played a large part. I am toldGlen carried with him a multitude of keys, butalways knew which key fit where. So also heknew how to approach each individual.His interests were many. They reflected theshaping of rare experiences. In 1961, The University of Chicago, reflecting old concerns now morewidely shared, arranged, primarily through Professor Sol Tax, for the American Indian ChicagoConference to be held on the campus. It was thelargest gathering of Indian tribes held up to thattime. As Chairman of the Board of Trustees,Glen knew about the Conference. On June 28 heappeared at the Field House to watch the IndianPow-Wow. Upon seeing Professor Tax, Glen inquired whether there were any representativesfrom the Ute Tribe. "Yes indeed there were,"Professor Tax responded. He proceeded tosearch them out and came back with three Indianwomen. He explained to them, as they listenedpatiently, that just as the Indians had their greatchiefs, so did The University of Chicago. IndeedMr. Lloyd, to whom they were now being intro duced, was our Great Chief. "Well," one of thewomen replied, "he may be your Great Chief, buthe is Little Glennie to me." The three womenwere friends from Glen's childhood, spent on theUte reservation in Utah, where his father was thedoctor.I know there was a good deal of Mary ville College in him. He was proud of it and his brother'spresidency of it. There was something of the University of Utah and of the rancher. Indeed therewas something retained from his experience as theathletic coach and teacher of mathematics atWestminster College. I am certain that part of hisability to reach out to people included the habitsof optimism and instructional guidance of theone-time athletic coach. He even half, or onequarter, believed that, given a chance, he couldmake a horseman out of me. He understood thejoke, but he often spoke, not completely teas-ingly, although mostly, of his plans in that regard.He had many choices to make in his career.When in 1954 he was deputy director of theForeign Operations Administration in Washington, he was faced with such a choice, for his exceptional gifts as a lawyer and government officialwere, of course, widely recognized. With somedifficulty, because he really liked to speak aboutthe other person's plans and not his own, he toldme about it when I saw him in Washington whenthe choice was being made. It was fortunate forthe City of Chicago and its institutions, and particularly The University of Chicago, that he decided to return here.To put it quite simply, Glen worked for TheUniversity of Chicago, as he worked for otherinstitutions of his choice. His vision for the University was high. He understood what should beits goals and ideals and what were its problems.He came to the chairmanship of the Board, joining an illustrious line, at a time when the University had serious difficulties in maintaining and, indeed, in recapturing the strength which had madeit one of the few preeminent universities in theworld. With Lawrence Kimpton, George Beadle,and others, the achievement was realized. Glen'simmediate influence went far beyond his leadership of his colleagues on the Board. He helped tobring and retain the faculty. He and Marion revived that spirit of interrelationship which hadmarked the founding days of the University. Hewas much involved in the pioneering developmentof Hyde Park-Kenwood as an extraordinarycommunity. Everything he did was enlightened bya broad conception of the importance of thegrowth of knowledge and, even more so, of un-95derstanding. As a member of the American BarAssociation and the American Bar Foundation,he worked for the establishment of the AmericanBar Center on the campus. The amazingemergence of the strongest and most excitingcluster of theological schools in the world at theUniversity, representing almost all denominations, is one of the later results of his influence.For he never stopped working for the Universityand the ideals which he held for it.The Law School Building of the University wasreally his creation. There is a real sense, althoughhe would not wish me to say it, in which the LawSchool, and not just its building, but its spirit andquality, was his. The portrait of Glen Lloyd asChairman of the Board of Trustees at The University of Chicago has in it as background thebuilding and school which came from his vision.This was, I believe, Peter Hurd's way of sayingthat this was how Glen would want to be remembered.We do remember. How hard and graciously heworked — no meeting too small to attend in anypart of the country, dashing from one end to theother, snowbound on trains — when trains wereNAPIER WILT, 1896—1975By WALTER BLAIRHis keen and lively mind took in, stored, andplayed with hosts of facts. Having watched growing things on his father's farm in FountainCounty, Indiana, he talked knowingly and amusingly about foibles of flowers, vegetables, shrubs,and trees. Up to his final illness, his garden andplant room were prodigious. On the harness racing circuit with his father's stable, he learned theways of horses, trainers, jockeys, and hangers-on.He saw and heard enough about the people in thelittle town of Hillsboro to enable him to instructSpoon River, Winesburg, and Peyton Place — allthree. He could sing — a bit off key but with greataffection — not just the choruses but most of theverses of Methodist hymns that he heard as a boy.Newly graduated from Indiana University in1917, he enlisted in the Field Artillery and servedabroad until the World War I armistice. He hardlyever talked about what happened to him, butsurely it was a shaking experience. He was in hisearly twenties; his battery was one of the first tobe sent from this country to the French front; he used — cheerfully hiring a plane in Harrisburgwhen the snow and sleet kept all other planesfrom flying, assuring his frightened companion, asthe plane slid back and forth across the runway,that after all, this was the way to travel.He probably was right. He knew how to travel,how to bring ideals into reality. He never forgoteither the human equation. Not the last time I sawhim, but near the last, on a cold Sunday afternoonin December, knowing I had a decision to make,on his own suggestion he and Marion took thejourney from Liberty ville to the President'sHouse on the Southside to help me explore what Imust do. As he rose to leave, after having led adiscussion by asking questions for two hours, hesaid, "No matter what decision you make, I willrespect you." That was characteristic of him. Hereached out to each one of us.Edward H. Levi is Attorney General of theUnited States, President Emeritus of the University, and the Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence in the Law School(on leave of absence).fought in battles with horrible casualties; he wasgassed; he received the Croix de Guerre withPalms; he left the service a sergent.Back home, helped by G.I. grants of the day,he acquired an M.A. and a PhD from The University of Chicago. During his graduate schoolyears, he won the lifelong friendship of greatteachers — John Manly, Myra Reynolds, GeorgeSherburn, and Percy Boynton. The year he received his doctorate, he was appointed to the faculty on which he would serve until his retirement.As a great teacher himself, of American literature, during forty years, he would win the life-longadoration of hundreds of students.Partly this would be because of his knowledgeconcerning a great many subjects and his stimulating way of talking about them. His travels throughthe United States and Central America, often byauto, familiarized him with the people and theirways in many sections — from tidewater Virginiato New England, from Montana to Yucatan. Alover of good food and drink, he could directtravelers to eating places that had delighted himand recite litanies of their favorite dishes thatconvinced listeners that they must travel miles outof their way to patronize them. He could say96where the best crayfish bisque and Creole gumbowere served in Louisiana, the best Basque food inNevada, the best guacamole in San Antonio andCuernevaca, the best Olympia oysters on thePuget Sound.He wandered through Europe and a fairly largepart of the Orient and became almost as well informed about the life styles and the cuisine inboth.He had other interests. He knew art museumsintimately, both the famous ones and the moreobscure ones. Years after visiting them he couldvividly recall individual works, their locations,details that he admired — in the Hermitage, say,the Philips, the Castres, the Prado, the Louvre,the Wallace, the Gardner, the Kunsthistorisches,the Frick, and the Uffizi. He was as well acquainted with symphonies and operas. Whereverhe went, he saw plays. He could contrast performances of O'Neill and Wilder in America, Germany, Italy, Finland, and Hong Kong.His reading ranged widely — English, European,and American history and biography; Europeanliterature; histories of the conquest of Mexico andChinese civilization. On a tour of an Englishcountry house, to his embarrassment he heardhimself "in my flat Midwestern voice" correctingthe lecturer concerning a detail in the noblefamily's history. Because he found England'sRestoration era and her eighteenth century particularly appealing, he read volumes of letters,memoirs, and plays in these periods. One of hismost admired courses — one he gave again andagain — was in Restoration drama.At any moment references to these interestsoutside of his special field might turn up in hiscourses in American literature, but they wouldcome in quite incidentally. For his classes, thoughthey were the most informal affairs in the world,were packed with completely relevant information. His researches also enriched his teaching.Though he published only a fraction of hisfindings, what he published was distinguished andvaluable. Some Early American Humorists, forinstance, scanned an important field as yet littleappreciated or explored. An article on Poe contained a previously unknown letter by the authorthat proved a hitherto unrecognized influence hadimportantly shaped Poe's theory and practice— that of popular magazines of the period. An article on Ambrose Bierce showed how actual CivilWar battles had shaped that writer's fiction. Hisedition of The White Slave and Other Plays byBartley Campbell made available in print for thefirst time five dramas by a largely forgotten play wright who was the most popular native dramatistduring the 1880s. For years Napier compilednotes on what — if he had ever got around to publishing it — would have been a definitive history ofChicago theaters. The huge file still awaits workby some scholar who can master and order itsmultitude of details.Napier Wilt was, as a matter of fact, more interested in teaching and administration than hewas in publishing. He often casually passed alongto students findings of his and ideas for studiesthat they eventually used in highly praised articlesand books. A bookcase full of volumes by formerstudents was prominently placed in the living-room of his apartment. Five were dedicated tohim; a great many had prefaces and inscriptionswhich thanked him for valuable assistance. Hisclasses constantly provided new insights and suggested new approaches.James E. Miller, who now professes Americanliterature in The University of Chicago, tellsabout the teaching: "I remember as a newgraduate student here asking Napier Wilt if he hadread a World War I novel that seemed to me toconnect with my experiences in World War II— John Dos Passos' Three Soldiers. Instead ofanswering, he said he wondered if that novelcould still have an impact and expressed keeninterest in my reaction. Later, in his course in the1920s the book turned up on the reading list. Icame to know that though Napier had read everything in American literature, and much besides,he was always asking a student what he or shethought, and finding the response fascinating,often significant. When a colleague complainedthat he never knew what was in his students'minds, Napier said that his problem was that heknew only too damned well what was going on inhis students' minds. Class members laughed whenhe told them this story, but they acknowledgedthe truth of his claim: he had an instinct that enabled him to tune in student feelings, concerns,insights. He didn't try to shape students into hisown image, but gave them something that helpedthem shape themselves. Self confidence was partof the gift, so was sheer fun of many sorts withliterature, and a strong sense of adventure. Myfirst course with him was one that dealt with WaltWhitman, one of the last which thoroughly surveyed the writings of Henry James. His taste waswide enough to embrace both with the gusto — orthe delicacy — required. When I remember Napier,I remember images: standing and talking afterclass, one foot on the wall, a lighted cigarette inhis hand, surrounded by students; bounding down97the Wieboldt stairs and telling a student out of theside of his mouth to come around for a discussionof his paper; pacing restlessly in the corridor between Wieboldt and Classics, in earnest discussionwith a colleague, greeting students on their way toclass. But I remember more: The important thingthat I and many others learned from him wasn't aset of literary facts or a critical system. It was away of life with literature. Many of us have beentrying to live that life ever since, and to share itwith our students."When Napier retired, I was asked to representhis former students in a meeting during which hewas presented with a going-away gift. Allegingthat he was what educationists would call astudent-centered teacher, I looked back over theyears to recall incidents that illustrated this tendency, and came upon a couple:A graduate student came to me and asked whatthis experience meant: "I'd talked with Mr. Wiltabout a problem of mine. I was about to leavewhen he handed me a chapter of a student's dissertation and asked me to read it. Upon reading it,I couldn't find anything good to say about it.'Well,' I finally said hesitantly, 'it doesn't seem toget anywhere.' He snatched it from my hand andbarked, 'Who in hell asked you for your opinion?'What in the world happened?" I was pretty sure Ihad an explanation: It was a hopeless chapter, butNapier had hoped against hope that his visitormight somehow find something good in it.I have decided that probably his most revealingremarks followed our discussing a certain student.We found little that was kind to say and predicteda dire end. (He later justified our prediction, becoming first a dean and later a college president.)But Napier ended the conversation by musing:"You know, I never have been able to dislike thefellow as much as I know I should!" This was along-lasting trouble: He knew all his students'faults, because we confided in him. But he nevermanaged to dislike us as much as he knew wedeserved.Thanks to the reputation Napier had as ateacher and to the Fulbright program, he was enabled to share his knowledge about American literature and life, his wisdom and his sensitivitywith students abroad: He taught at various timesin Oxford University, Torino, Hyderabad, HongKong, and Helsinki — in Helsinki on two occasions. His success abroad was indicated by asteady parade of visiting former students from theEuropean and Far Eastern schools to his apartment whenever they passed through Chicago. He never let anything cut down on histeaching — even his administrative work. Carryinga full load, he held important administrative positions during more than two decades, all for ratherlengthy periods — Dean of Students in theHumanities Division (1941-1945), Chairman ofthe Department of English (1947-1951), Dean ofthe Division of the Humanities (1951-1962)."During his long period of administration asDean of the Humanities," says PresidentEmeritus George Wells Beadle, "the faculty ofthe Division, strong-minded individualists as theyare, were united in their feelings of confidence inDean Wilt. Their trust resulted from their belief inhis absolute impartiality and fairness, and fromhis tested ability to present successfully the highest goals of the Division to the Central Administration."One important contribution was toward the establishment and perpetuation of the VisitingCommittee of the Humanities Division. Throughhis constant efforts, friends in the world outsidethe University gained a far greater understandingof the aims and the activities of humanists. Thisunderstanding produced fellowships, scholarships, and research funds at a time when grants inthe field were — as they always have been — veryhard to secure.A large grant from the Ford Foundation underwrote a Midwestern intercollegiate Master'sprogram in the Division. Juniors and Seniors inthirty-seven liberal arts colleges in the surrounding area where counseled in preparation forgraduate studies and, following graduation, weresupported while they worked in The University ofChicago for M.A. degrees in the Humanities bythe Ford Foundation and the University. Othergrants enabled the Division to establish importantresearch chairs. And Napier himself made generous gifts to the University during his lifetime thatwere augmented in his will by a fund for the useand benefit of the Graduate Humanities Division.Appointments that greatly strengthened severaldepartments were made during his deanship.Finally, he played an important role as amember of committees which selected two presidents of the University — Lawrence Kimpton andGeorge Wells Beadle.Napier Wilt died on Wednesday, November 12,1975, at his home, 5125 Ellis Avenue, after anextended illness.Walter Blair is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English.98DISTINGUISHED SERVICE, NAMED, AND UNIVERSITY PROFESSORSRobert McC. Adams Harold H. Swift DistinguishedService Professor Oriental Institute, Anthropology,Near Eastern Languages andCivilizationsEdward AndersGeorge W. BeadleGary S. BeckerSaul Bellow Horace B. Horton ProfessorWilliam E. Wrather DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusUniversity ProfessorRaymond W. and Martha HilpertGruner Distinguished ServiceProfessor Chemistry, Enrico Fermi Institute,The CollegeBiology, Committee on Genetics,The CollegeEconomicsCommittee on Social Thought,EnglishBrian J. L. BerryBruno BettelheimBenjamin S. Bloom Irving B. Harris Professor in UrbanGeographyStella M. Rowley DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusCharles H. Swift DistinguishedService Professor Geography, The College, Centerfor Urban StudiesEducation, Psychiatry, BehavioralSciences, Orthogenic SchoolEducationWalter J. BlumWayne C. Booth Wilson-Dickinson Professor of LawGeorge M. Pullman DistinguishedService Professor Law SchoolEnglish, The CollegeJerald C. BrauerFelix E. BrowderHoward M. Brown Naomi Shenstone DonnelleyProfessorLouis Block ProfessorFerdinand Schevill DistinguishedService Professor Divinity SchoolMathematics, The College, Committeeon Conceptual Foundations of ScienceMusic, The CollegeAlberto P. CalderonS. Chandrasekhar University ProfessorMorton D. Hull DistinguishedService Professor MathematicsAstronomy and Astrophysics,Physics, Enrico Fermi Institute,Committee on ConceptualFoundations of ScienceLuis A. CibilsGerhard L. Closs Mary Campau Ryerson ProfessorAlbert A. Michelson DistinguishedService Professor Obstetrics and GynecologyChemistry, The CollegeRonald H. Coase Clifton R. Musser Professor ofEconomics Law School99Morrel H. Cohen Louis Block Professor Physics, Biophysics andTheoretical Biology, JamesFranck Institute, The CollegeJames S. ColemanJames W. CroninKenneth W. DamDonald DavidsonSidney DavidsonAllison DavisKenneth C. DavisAlbert DorfmanAllison DunhamDavid EastonFrederick R. EgganMircea EliadeEdgar G. EppsEugene F. FamaH. Fernandez-MoranFrank W. FitchHarry A. Fozzard University ProfessorUniversity ProfessorHarold J. and Marion F. GreenProfessor in International LegalStudiesUniversity ProfessorArthur Young Professor ofAccountingJohn Dewey Distinguished ServiceProfessorJohn P. Wilson ProfessorRichard T. Crane DistinguishedService ProfessorArnold I. Shure Professor of UrbanLegal StudiesAndrew MacLeish DistinguishedService Professor SociologyPhysics, Enrico FermiInstitute, The CollegeLaw SchoolPhilosophyGraduate School of BusinessEducation, Behavioral SciencesLaw SchoolPediatrics, Biochemistry,Committee on Genetics,La Rabida Institute, Committeeon Developmental BiologyLaw SchoolPolitical ScienceHarold H. Swift Distinguished AnthropologyService Professor EmeritusSewell L. Avery DistinguishedService ProfessorMarshall Field IV Professor inUrban EducationTheodore O. Yntema Professorof FinanceA. N. Pritkzer Professor ofBiophysicsAlbert D. Lasker Professor inMedical ScienceOtho S. A. Sprague Professor ofMedical Sciences Divinity School, Committeeon Social ThoughtEducationGraduate School of BusinessBiological Sciences DivisionPathology, Committee onImmunology, Franklin McLeanInstituteMedicine, Pharmacological andPhysiological Sciences100John Hope FranklinDaniel X. FreedmanLawrence Z. FreedmanJosef FriedMilton FriedmanHerman H. FussierIgnace J. GelbEdwin M. GerowJacob W. GetzelsAlan GewirthJulian R. GoldsmithLeo A. GoodmanRobert M. GrantJames M. GustafsonHans G. GiiterbockJack HalpernEric P. HampHarry HarootunianChauncy D. Harris John Matthews Manly DistinguishedService ProfessorLouis Block ProfessorFoundations Fund ResearchProfessorLouis Block ProfessorPaul Snowden Russell DistinguishedService ProfessorMartin A. Ryerson DistinguishedService ProfessorFrank P. Hixon DistinguishedService ProfessorFrank L. Sulzberger Professor ofCivilizationsR. Wendell Harrison DistinguishedService ProfessorEdward Carson Waller DistinguishedService ProfessorCharles E. Merriam DistinguishedService ProfessorCharles L. Hutchinson DistinguishedService ProfessorCarl Darling Buck Professor ofHumanitiesUniversity ProfessorTiffany and Margaret BlakeDistinguished Service ProfessorLouis Block ProfessorRobert Maynard HutchinsDistinguished Service ProfessorMax Palevsky Professor of Historyand CivilizationsSamuel N. Harper DistinguishedService Professor HistoryPsychiatryPsychiatryChemistry, Biochemistry, BenMay LaboratoryEconomicsGraduate Library SchoolOriental Institute, Linguistics,Near Eastern Languages andCivilizationsSouth Asian Languages andCivilizations, The CollegeEducation, Behavioral SciencesPhilosophyGeophysical Sciences, TheCollegeStatistics, SociologyDivinity School, New Testamentand Early Christian LiteratureDivinity School, The CollegeOriental Institute, Linguistics,Near Eastern/Languages andCivilizationsChemistry, The CollegeLinguistics, Behavioral Sciences,The CollegeHistory, The CollegeGeography, Center forInternational StudiesRobert Haselkorn Fanny L. Pritzker ProfessorPhilip M. HauserArthur Lee HerbstPing-ti HoClyde A. Hutchison, Jr.Charles B. HugginsJanellen HuttenlocherHalil InalcikMark G. InghramPhilip W. JacksonLeon O. JacobsonMorris JanowitzJohn E. JeuckD. Gale JohnsonHarry G. JohnsonIrving KaplanskyJoseph B. KirsnerHeinrich KluverLeonard Krieger102 Lucy Flower Professor in UrbanSociologyJoseph Bolivar DeLee Professor Biophysics and TheoreticalBiology, Biochemistry,Chemistry, The College,Committee on Genetics,Committee on DevelopmentalBiologySociology, Population ResearchCenterObstetrics and GynecologyJames Westfall Thompson Professor History, Far Eastern Languagesand CivilizationsCarl William EisendrathDistinguished Service ProfessorWilliam B. Ogden DistinguishedService ProfessorWilliam S. Gray ProfessorUniversity ProfessorSamuel K. Allison DistinguishedService ProfessorDavid Lee Shillinglaw DistinguishedService ProfessorJoseph Regenstein Professor ofBiological and Medical SciencesDistinguished Service ProfessorRobert Law ProfessorEliakim Hastings MooreDistinguished Service ProfessorCharles F. Grey DistinguishedService ProfessorGeorge Herbert MeadDistinguished Service ProfessorLouis Block DistinguishedService ProfessorSewell L. Avery DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusUniversity Professor Chemistry, Enrico FermiInstitute, The CollegeBen May Laboratory,SurgeryEducation, Behavioral SciencesHistoryPhysics, The CollegeEducation, Behavioial SciencesMedicine, Franklin McLeanInstitute, The CollegeSociology, The CollegeGraduate School of BusinessEconomics, The CollegeEconomicsMathematics, The CollegeMedicineBiological Sciences DivisionHistoryWilliam H. KruskalPhilip B. KurlandDonald F. LachEdward H. LeviJohn R. LindsayJames H. LorieEdward E. LowinskySaunders Mac LaneArthur MannWilliam H. McNeillPaul MeierBernard D. MeltzerMerton H. MillerWilliam W. MorganNorval MorrisBruce A. MorrisetteAron A. Moscona Ernest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService ProfessorWilliam R. Kenan, Jr., Professor inthe CollegeBernadotte E. Schmitt ProfessorKarl N. Llewellyn DistinguishedService Professor of JurisprudenceThomas D. Jones Professor EmeritusEli B. and Harriet B. WilliamsProfessor of BusinessFerdinand Schevill DistinguishedService ProfessorMax Mason Distinguished ServiceProfessor Statistics, The CollegeLaw School, The CollegeHistoryLaw SchoolSurgeryGraduate School of BusinessMusicMathematics, The College,Committee on ConceptualFoundations of SciencePreston and Sterling Morton Professor HistoryRobert A. Milliken Distinguished HistoryService ProfessorRalph and Mary Otis IshamProfessorJames Parker Hall ProfessorEdward Eagle Brown Professor inBanking and FinanceBernard E. and Ellen C. SunnyDistinguished Service ProfessorEmeritusJulius Kreeger Professor of Lawand CriminologyBernard E. and Ellen C. SunnyDistinguished Service ProfessorLouis Block ProfessorJohn F. Mullan John Harper Seeley Professor in theNeurological Sciences Statistics, Pharmacologicaland Physiological Sciences,The CollegeLaw SchoolGraduate School of BusinessAstronomy and AstrophysicsLaw SchoolRomance Languages andLiteraturesPathology, Biology, Committeeon Developmental Biology,Committee on Genetics, TheCollegeSurgery (Neurosurgery), BrainResearch Institute, FranklinMcLean Institute103Robert S. MullikenYoichiro NambuPhil C. NealFrank NewellElder J. OlsonEugene N. ParkerHelen H. PerlmanMurray RabinowitzMelvin W. RederWilliam J. ReidErica ReinerStuart A. RicePaul RicoeurClemens C. J. RoothaanMargaret K. RosenheimSidney SchulmanTheodore W. SchultzNathan A. Scott, Jr.Edward A. Shils, Jr. Ernest DeWitt Burton DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusDistinguished Service ProfessorHarry A. Bigelow Professor of LawJames Nelson and Anna LouiseRaymond ProfessorDistinguished Service ProfessorDistinguished Service ProfessorSamuel Deutsch DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusLouis Block ProfessorIsidore Brown and Gladys J. BrownProfessor in Urban and LaborEconomicsGeorge Herbert Jones ProfessorJohn A. Wilson ProfessorLouis Block ProfessorJohn Nuveen ProfessorLouis Block ProfessorHelen Ross ProfessorEllen C. Manning ProfessorCharles L. Hutchinson DistinguishedService Professor EmeritusShailer Mathews ProfessorDistinguished Service Professor Physics, ChemistryPhysics, Enrico Fermi InstituteLaw SchoolOphthalmologyEnglish, The CollegePhysics, Astronomy andAstrophysics, Enrico FermiInstitute, The CollegeSocial Service AdministrationMedicine, Biochemistry,Franklin McLean InstituteGraduate School of BusinessSocial Service AdministrationOriental Institute, Linguistics,Near Eastern Languages andCivilizationsChemistry, Biophysics andTheoretical Biology, JamesFranck Institute, The CollegeDivinity School, PhilosophyPhysics, ChemistrySocial Service AdministrationPathologyEconomicsDivinity School, EnglishSociology, Committee onSocial ThoughtBernece K. Simon Samuel Deutsch Professor Social Service Administration104John A. SimpsonMilton B. SingerRonald SingerDavid B. SkinnerJonathan Z. SmithDonald F. SteinerGeorge J. StiglerRobert E. StreeterHewson H. SwiftStuart M. TaveValentine L. TelegdiHenri TheilJ. Alan ThomasDaniel C. TostesonConstantine TrypanisAnthony Turkevich Arthur Holly Compton DistinguishedService ProfessorPaul Klapper Professor of SocialSciences in the CollegeRobert R. Bensley Professor inBiology and Medical SciencesDallas B. Phemister ProfessorWilliam Benton Professor ofReligion and Human Sciences inthe CollegeA. N. Pritzker ProfessorCharles R. Walgreen DistinguishedService Professor of AmericanInstitutionsEdward L. Ryerson DistinguishedService ProfessorDistinguished Service ProfessorWilliam Rainey Harper Professorin the CollegeEnrico Fermi Distinguished ServiceProfessorUniversity ProfessorWilliam Claude Reavis Professor ofEducational AdministrationLowell T. Coggeshall Professor ofMedical SciencesUniversity ProfessorJames Franck Distinguished ServiceProfessor Physics, Enrico FermiInstituteAnthropology, The CollegeAnatomy, Anthropology,Committee on EvolutionaryBiology, Committee on Genetics,The CollegeSurgeryDivinity School, The College,New Testament and EarlyChristian LiteratureBiochemistry, Medicine,The CollegeGraduate School of Business,EconomicsEnglish, The CollegeBiology, Pathology, TheCollege, Committee on GeneticsThe College, EnglishPhysics, Enrico FermiInstitute, The CollegeGraduate School of Business,Economics, Center forMathematical Studies in Businessand EconomicsEducationPharmacological andPhysiological Sciences, TheCollegeClassical Languages andLiteraturesChemistry, Enrico FermiInstitute, The College105Robert B. UretzJohannes A. B. vanBuitenenEdward Wasiolek Ralph W. Gerard ProfessorDistinguished Service ProfessorAvalon Foundation ProfessorCharles W. WegenerKarl J. WeintraubWarner A. WickGeorge L. Wied Howard L. Willett Professor inthe CollegeThomas E. Donnelley ProfessorWilliam Rainey Harper Professorin the CollegeBlum-Riese ProfessorH. G. Williams- Ashman Maurice Goldblatt ProfessorRobert W. WisslerAlbert WohlstetterIra G. WoolArnold ZellnerAntoni Zygmund Donald N. Pritzker Professor in theBiological SciencesUniversity ProfessorA. J. Carlson Professor of BiologicalSciencesH. G. B. Alexander Professor inBusiness AdministrationGustavus F. and Ann M. SwiftDistinguished Service Professor Biophysics and TheoreticalBiology, The College, Committeeon GeneticsSouth Asian Languages andCivilizationsSlavic Languages andLiteratures, The College,Committee on ComparativeStudies in LiteratureThe College, Committee on Ideasand MethodsHistory, Committee on theHistory of Culture, The CollegePhilosophy, The CollegeObstetrics and Gynecology,PathologyBiochemistry, Pharmacological andPhysiological Sciences, BenMay Laboratory, The CollegePathology, Franklin McLeanInstitute, The CollegePolitical ScienceBiochemistry, The CollegeGraduate School of BusinessMathematics106THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration Building_ o zT I om £ c 33D P •b2 > — co 3POSTAGAID0,ILLINTNO.31 O<D03s-* O m*¦ ? § ICO